Venezuela's Last Opposition TV Owner Arrested

WrongSizeGlass writes "AP is reporting the owner of Venezuela's only remaining TV channel that takes a critical line against President Hugo Chavez was arrested Thursday. 'Guillermo Zuloaga, owner of Globovision, was arrested on a warrant for remarks that were deemed "offensive" to the president,' Attorney General Luisa Ortega said. This comes on the heels of last week's story titled Venezuela's Chavez To Limit Internet Freedom."

Comments

Uh oh

[Xaedalus]

As bad as things were in Venezuela before this, now they've gotten much, much worse. Any chance of convincing some gray/black hats to strike a blow for decency and sanity, and hack Chavez's websites to portray him as a transvestigial equinophiliac paedo-cannibal?

anything that will make the common people laugh at him, and thereby undermine his social standing from within is just about the only hope Venezuela has left

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed... th3j35t3r needs to learn some Spanish!

Re:Uh oh

[Kvasio]

this only makes Hugo a step closer to his role model - president Lukaszenko of Belarus. He also closed all independent media - few years ago.

Re:Uh oh

[John Hasler]

> Any chance of convincing some gray/black hats to strike a blow for decency
> and sanity, and hack Chavez's websites to portray him as a transvestigial
> equinophiliac paedo-cannibal?

> anything that will make the common people laugh at him...

Why do you imagine that would "make the common people laugh at him"? He'd successfully portray it as a CIA attack.

He's the Venezuelans' problem and only they can solve it. Either they will get rid of the kook or they won't.

Re:Uh oh

[royallthefourth]

anything that will make the common people laugh at him, and thereby undermine his social standing from within is just about the only hope Venezuela has left

Ha! You think common people have the internet in Venezuela?

White-collar, internet posting first-worlders are a global minority numerically.

Re:Uh oh

[scubamage]

Sadly the CIA gave him that sway when they unsuccessfully tried to launch a coup against him in 2002 after he nationalized oil production. Very similar to what happened the coup against Mohommad Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950's. The downside is we got caught with our hand in the cookie jar this time around, and Chavez has been very carte blanche about dragging it out every time anything critical of him comes out. Its only gotten worse as Chavez has gotten... umm... how to put it nicely... battier? Its a shame, he was a cool leader when he began; and had a number of revolutionary ideas (even if he completely understood the history of Simon Bolivar).

Re:Uh oh

[scubamage]

So that was supposed to say misunderstood. My bad.

Re:Uh oh

[Martin Blank]

I don't know that he can last too much longer. Even the poor are starting to turn against him. His attempt a couple of years ago to amend the constitution to allow him to run for president forever turned out to be an embarrassing failure, though he handled it with as much dignity as he has anything else. Oil revenues have declined as output has slowed, in part because much of Venezuela's oil is heavy and difficult to extract, and the expertise to do so was largely provided by foreign companies. When he nationalized the oil industry there, many of those experts told him to go pound sand when he asked for assistance. The electricity grid has declined in reliability as well, and the money just isn't there to fix it (courtesy of the declining oil production).

That Venezuela provides discounted or free oil to certain other nations does not help the fiscal line, nor does the refusal (or perhaps political inability) to charge market rates for petroleum products at home, which results in gasoline that costs a tenth of what it does elsewhere in the world, something that Venezuelans see basically as their right as an oil-producing nation.

He's also warned of "defensive actions" against Colombia (a nation that is not even close to being able to stage a successful attack on a country like Venezuela) on a couple of occasions, and has modernized the military. It would not surprise me at all to see them fighting in the next few years, though, and I will laugh if Venezuela's modern but inexperienced army gets their heads handed to them by the lesser-equipped but far more combat-experienced Colombian army.

Then again, I said that he couldn't possible last a few years ago when the troubles began. A fragmented opposition that can't get a basic unified message together combined with further limited opportunities to get the message out and Chavez's persistent presence on TV for hours on end mean that Chavez will continue to hold the edge for some time to come.

Re:Uh oh

[cayenne8]

I'm afraid the US is heading down this same path.

Maybe not as directly or forcefully..but in a more subliminal way to silent opposition in the US. Efforts are on to try to put a lid on talk radio.

I'm still trying to figure out the position that Mark Lloyd holds.."Chief Diversity Officer"? Is this analagous to the Ministry of Truth?

Hell, Mark seems to actually appreciate what Hugo Chavez has done . And this guy is high up at the FCC??

Re:Uh oh

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

He's the Venezuelans' problem and only they can solve it.

Actually, for a lot of Venezuelans, Chavez was the solution.

Re:Uh oh

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Actually, Chavez has done quite alot to give a voice and financial help to the struggling poor and indigenous people of Venezuela. This doesn't excuse his campaign against free speach and democracy in his country, but you have to understand the situation on the ground there. Under previous regimes only the rich, white upper class had anything to say. Poor people were working under very bad conditions and had noone to speak for them. Then there's the fact that the U.S. staged a coup attempt against Chavez shortly after he was democratically voted into power.

So what Chavez is doing lately certainly isn't the right thing, but I can understand why he is prejudiced and very suspicious of the establishment and the rich folks controlling the media in his country.

Re:Uh oh

[CorporateSuit]

Its only gotten worse as Chavez has gotten... umm... how to put it nicely... battier? Its a shame, he was a cool leader when he began; and had a number of revolutionary ideas

The same has been said about Mugabe.

I suppose it's as Buddha said: you either die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Re:Uh oh

[Wyatt Earp]

If Venezuela were to attack Columbia, Columbia would wipe the floor with Venezuela.

Re:Uh oh

[Wyatt Earp]

When you link to WND you flag yourself as a nutjob.

Re:Uh oh

[coaxial]

You look quite fetching in that tin foil hat.

Seriously, you link to World Net Daily? That's the same outfit that rails about UN Peacekeepers building gulags in Kansas, while saying that having the President unilaterally declare citizens "unlawful combatants" and indefinitely imprisoning them without trial and having them tortured is a-okay.

Re:Uh oh

[fiannaFailMan]

anything that will make the common people laugh at him, and thereby undermine his social standing from within is just about the only hope Venezuela has left

Well he makes a dick out of himself on an almost daily basis with that TV show of his.

I used to have some sympathy for the guy back in the day when it did look like the Bush administration were likely culprits for trying to oust him, but since then he's proven an old saying of mine that sometimes it's better to let someone keep on talking and let him undermine himself. He lost that last refferendum on the constitutional amendment to banish presidential term limits, so it looks like his support isn't as solid as it was.

Re:Uh oh

[cayenne8]

"When you link to WND you flag yourself as a nutjob."

Actually I was just googling for the story I'd heard from radio/tv sources originally...I just clicked the first link that had the story out of many that came up, not familiar with any of their other stories.

Re:Uh oh

[rumblin'rabbit]

Venezuela's forces are 130,000 strong, and they've been buying a lot of military equipment lately from oil revenues. Colombia's armed forces are 145,00 strong, not counting police, and is also well equiped.

Reminds me of Europe in 1913.

Re:Uh oh

[Scrameustache]

He's also warned of "defensive actions" against Colombia (a nation that is not even close to being able to stage a successful attack on a country like Venezuela) on a couple of occasions, and has modernized the military. It would not surprise me at all to see them fighting in the next few years, though, and I will laugh if Venezuela's modern but inexperienced army gets their heads handed to them by the lesser-equipped but far more combat-experienced Colombian army.

I was about to mod you up, but having read that part I'll give you this information instead: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8343692.stm
Colombian opposition groups have reacted angrily after details of a controversial military deal with the US were made public.
Under the 10-year deal, the US military will not only have access to military bases, but also be able to use major international civilian airports.

Re:Uh oh

[bigjocker]

Everybody has internet in venezuela. It's not a jungle, you know.

Re:Uh oh

[Wyatt Earp]

They are big in the Truther and Birther movements. You know, thought 9/11 was punishment from God for New York's sins.

Re:Uh oh

[Wyatt Earp]

With how many US troops and PMCs in Columbia? The VZ forces don't train much, the Columbians train and fight alot.

Re:Uh oh

[plover]

Why do you imagine that would "make the common people laugh at him"? He'd successfully portray it as a CIA attack.

Then bring in the Russians. Those ex-KGB guys knew how to run a good disinformation campaign. Throw mud, keep throwing mud, fling mud into real news stories that spin them the wrong way, do everything you can to make the target look incompetent and buffoonish at every turn. Be sure to use deniable cut-outs so that the deceit can't ever be traced directly back to you.

They caused plenty of dissent in the USA during the cold war. They also learned that disinformation wasn't enough to topple the leaders of the U.S. government, nor did it give them the clear advantage in negotiations. Occasionally it gave them blackmail opportunities to create informants, but for the most part it was a giant waste of money. The KGB apparently never saw it that way, as they stated in 1984 that "Our chief task is to help to frustrate the aggressive intentions of American imperialism ... We must work unweariedly at exposing the adversary's weak and vulnerable points." The job of Service A was to fabricate disinformation through "active measures."

Service A was responsible for casting doubt upon the lone gunman "theory" of the Kennedy assassination; they portrayed J. Edgar Hoover as a Bircher and amplified the rumors of him being a gay cross dresser; and they successfully caused gullible third world leaders to believe all kinds of lies, from AIDS being created by the U.S. Army at Fort Detrick to the U.S. importing third-world orphans to use as organ donors to supposed plans to overthrow the Indian president Rajiv Gandhi.

Re:Uh oh

[royallthefourth]

I don't mean to portray it as a banana republic. However, when Wikipedia tells me things like 30% of the population lives on less than $2 per day, it gives me the impression that things like computers are not that widely available.

Re:Uh oh

[cayenne8]

"They are big in the Truther and Birther movements. You know, thought 9/11 was punishment from God for New York's sins."

LOL...didn't know all that...well, maybe they got something right in spite of themselves...

The same store is told out there in other places...I stand by my assertations

Re:Uh oh

[twistah]

Who are these "common people" you're talking about? At least you give them credit for knowing what the Internet is. But since they've, ostensibly, been on the Internet before, why do you think a Photoshop on a government site would somehow make them revolt against their government?

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a correction: Venezuela's oil company had been owned by the State for several decades now and it had notable Venezuelan experts. What Chavez did was fire them all (literally, all of them) because they were with the opossition, and this gradually brought the collapse of the oil company. Foreign companies were more than eager to work with Chavez as long as they get paid.

Re:Uh oh

[Wyatt Earp]

I read that as well today, someone from MSNBC said that they should "socialize" radio and TV.

I stand by the whole WND is a bunch of loons.

Re:Uh oh

[poetmatt]

again, you clarified that you are a right wing/nutjob.

Even reading WMD in the first place shows the issue, and standing by your assertion is not exactly helping.

The US has problems with corruption, but a lot of what is going on right now is a result of people trying to get rid of the corruption we have. It's going to take us many years. be patient and not scream about how "they're takin our gunz/liberties".

Re:Uh oh

[that this is not und]

But now, for the most part, Chavez is the precipitate.

Re:Uh oh

[jmorris42]

> Actually, for a lot of Venezuelans, Chavez was the solution.

If Communism is the answer somebody asked a really stupid question.

Seriously, compare the lot of the average person there to things pre Chavez and ask if it is better? More importantly, will it be better after another decade of this idiot's misrule?

So forget the more fuzzy question of whether they would have been better off just working towards establishing a better, more free government with the rule of law and some basic protections instead of falling for the tired socialist utopian siren song, because while difficult to 'prove' any sane person already knows the answer to it.

Personally I'd love to see, just once because a second wouldn't ever be needed, the US Govt ask the oil companies who got their assets nationalized by some commie thug if they are 'cool with that' and if they aren't (duh!) if they wouldn't mind if we denied the thug the fruits of his wickedness. Then we airlift out the foreign workers and after giving the locals an hour bomb the living sh*t out of the oil fields.

Re:Uh oh

[jhol13]

I have always wondered how the power corrupts.

I mean, suppose I got to be a dictator, would I become a monster? What would be needed to make me nutjob, a coup attempt, an assassination attempt or what?
How long does it take, after all it seems to happen very, very fast.

When Chavez won the election he seemed like almost-sane (well, about as sane as any president in S-A, I'd say). Not anymore.

Re:Uh oh

[jmorris42]

> Seriously, you link to World Net Daily?

Who the hell cares where the video is hosted. Answer the original poster's question about what Lloyd SAID. Or proclaim the video a fake because that is probably the only real option for your team. If Lloyd did indeed SAY it then I dount there IS a possible rebuttal yet I also can't imagine any 'Progressive' disowning the remarks either. Because from you guys POV his only mistake was getting caught on video saying what you guys normally only say in private.

Re:Uh oh

[MightyMartian]

Considering how many American dollars flow into Venezuela, he can afford to be anything he likes. If we really want to convince Venezuelans to get rid of this guy, stop refining their frickin' oil.

Re:Uh oh

[joshuapurcell]

Wrong on one important fact: Chavez did fire the executives of the state-owned company, but only after they tried to cause a collapse of the government through strangling it economically by calling for a shutdown of the company (which constitutes a large percentage of the government's income). They wouldn't do their job of running the company because they didn't like having to think about something other than increasing their profit, that is to think about what was best for the Venezuelan society as a whole. And they had many years where they weren't made to care about social issues and things like equality etc., so it's understandable they had a hard time taking these things into account. It's also understandable that they were thanked for their years of service as they were shown the door because of this.

Re:Uh oh

[joshuapurcell]

Absolutely. Some media outlets in that country played a major role in the coup attempts, even going as far as fabricating stories about Bolivarian protesters firing on and killing anti-Chavez protesters with help from the military and wealthy elite BEFORE any shootings took place. This on top of the (now well documented) fact that these stories were a complete fabrication. These events happened during the 2002 coup attempt which I believe was in in the beginning of the year. Those who were trying to overthrow the government needed a rallying point for beginning the attack on the government and these shootings, and the re-routing of the anti-Chavez protest towards the presidential quarters (where the supporters were) in order to make it seem like there was a violent attack by the evil Chavez supporters was the best they could think of, and they messed it up by completely underestimating the level of support Chavez's government actually had with the people of Venezuela (as well as the rest of the military, who shortly after the coup released Chavez).

Re:Uh oh

[joshuapurcell]

That is actually the only thing that has gone up for a vote in that country (as far as I know) and turned out against what the government wished would have happened. This year's election (which is really the whole reason why reports like the one that originally kicked of this thread are even showing up at this time) will be interesting to watch.

Re:Uh oh

[e9th]

Julius Caesar.

Re:Uh oh

[mikael_j]

I suppose it's as Buddha said: you either die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

I'm pretty sure it was Harvey Dent (from Batman) who said that, not Siddhartha Gautama.

Re:Uh oh

[ultranova]

I mean, suppose I got to be a dictator, would I become a monster?

Very likely yes.

What would be needed to make me nutjob, a coup attempt, an assassination attempt or what?

The realization that you can do anything without consequences will do it for some. For others, it's the fact that they could, which drives others away. Human beings are social animals and need peer pressure to act as corrective feedback. A dictator can, if he will, ignore that feedback, or tune it to more of his liking. The end of that road is living in your own fantasy world with no one daring to tell you the truth; the Emperor truly believes himself to be robed and kills anyone who dares to disagree.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even the poor are starting to turn against him."

citation?

"His attempt a couple of years ago to amend the constitution to allow him to run for president forever turned out to be an embarrassing failure."

Not true. He won the referendum on the second try.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/15/AR2009021500136_pf.html

When right-wing US friend Uribe in Columbia tries the same thing, there's complete silence about it in the western mainstream media.

Is Colombia's Uribe pulling a Chávez on term limits?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2009/0902/p06s05-woam.html

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

because they didn't like having to think about something other than increasing their profit, that is to think about what was best for the Venezuelan society as a whole.

Yes, after all, that social justice is working out so well for them. Of course it's the result from "the rich" and, no doubt, "nazis" and "jews" and ... sabotaging them.

The failure of socialism, everywhere in the world, is just one big conspiracy man ! Can't you see the CIA did it ? Or was it the mossad that kidnapped these guys ? (in reality, of course, it was Chavez that kidnapped them)

Socialism works. It's just those sabotaging rich jews forcing the government to kidnap it's own productive citizens ! It's probably why the US is doing the same thing. One industry at a time. It worked out so well for telephone companies and broadband, it must work out well for healthcare or the democrats are going to cry like little babies for years, and I'm sure they've already worked where else those evil companies* should be departing.

* one thing I don't understand is that a company, according to democrat loonies, is about as evil as it's size. Dell is more evil than, say, Fog Creek software. Microsoft is more evil than Sun. So what do they want to do ? Replace those very, very big companies, by .... a much bigger company (the government). Which would seem to make things more evil, no ?

(needless to say this post is very sarcastic, meant to call attention to the idiocy of the parent poster)

Re:Uh oh

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Actually that would probably be a good example of why power corrupts. Julius Caesar didn't choose to overthrow the government, or at least he was presented with the choice between death and becoming caesar.

His first choice, incidentally, was death, or at least, his first choice was to go on a very difficult military mission that could very well have been the end of him. There was just one tiny little problem : he aced that mission.

Of course, when he tried to go back "parliament" threw every trick at him : they tried to lure his soldiers against him with money. They put a price on his head. They told another guy they would make him caesar if he killed Julius Caesar. They ... Of course they weren't exactly popular rulers, they were cowards and so decadent it was a rare day that 10% of them were sober. They made laws that Caesar couldn't return.

Of course, it was one of those times in history that even an intellectual agreed that laws without guns (or spears in these times) behind them. Well those laws and 2 oxen was worth exactly 2 oxen. If they didn't get stolen.

Why did power corrupt, why did Caesar become a dictator ? Well he (and a lot of contemporary historians) put it this way : it was that, or the end of Rome, and his own personal death.

Then again, maybe that's just propaganda.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Also, if he starts a war, doesn't that give everyone else carte blanche to roll in and give him a kicking?

Re:Uh oh

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I've never believed that. Think about it: the kind of person who is narcissistic enough to think himself deserving of such power, driven enough to pursue it and cunning enough to actually get it is probably already psychotic or psychopathic or at least well on the way after the experiences needed to become absolute ruler. Power may corrupt, but I see more evidence that power attracts the corrupted.

Re:Uh oh

[Martin Soto]

You're right! If Venezuela were to attack Columbia, Columbia would wipe the floor with Venezuela, that's for sure! On the other hand, if they were to attack Colombia things may turn out to be different.

Still, as a Colombian (that is, from Bogotá, not from Washington) I think this is a very unlikely event. Chávez barks very often about deploying his shiny new war toys against Colombia, but reality is that nobody knows how long he'd be able to keep his war gear running, given the current sad state of Venezuela's finances. But probably the main reason why a war wouldn't make any sense is that Colombia and Venezuela share their history and culture to a large extent. We have really no reason to atack each other, and Chávez's delusions of grandeur aren't going to change this.

Re:Uh oh

[xelah]

Oil revenues have declined as output has slowed, in part because much of Venezuela's oil is heavy and difficult to extract, and the expertise to do so was largely provided by foreign companies. When he nationalized the oil industry there, many of those experts told him to go pound sand when he asked for assistance.

He's also sucked so much money out of the oil industry for 'social programmes' (ie, to hand to the poor in exchange for political support) that it can't invest in infrastructure. He's also raided central bank reserves and destroyed a lot of private enterprise. He might have handed a lot of money to the poor, but he's done it by running down Venezuela's capital and productive capacity.

He will run out of money. The Venezuelan poor will end up poorer than they were before. The economy will be left in a state where it's difficult to do anything about it. Maybe he knows he has to be so thoroughly entrenched by then that he can't be easily removed even when the poor find out?

Re:Uh oh

[alantus]

This year's election (which is really the whole reason why reports like the one that originally kicked of this thread are even showing up at this time) will be interesting to watch.

Dude, the election is for the congress, and its in september, 6 months away.
And it won't be interesting to watch because they are working in order to transfer the authority of the assembly to "the people". (of course, "the people" are not going to be elected by popular vote). The same thing happened when Antonio Ledezma (an opposition leader) was elected mayor of Caracas, Chavez just named someone above Ledezma to undermine his authority and take over the budget.

Re:Uh oh

[Hognoxious]

I think you're right, and jhol13 has cause and effect the wrong way round.

Re:Uh oh

[alantus]

First of all, the war wouldn't be between Venezuela and Colombia, it would be between Chavez and Colombia. And I'm not sure if Chavez' commanders would follow an order to attack Colombia.
Colombia has the support and technology of countries like Israel, USA, France, Spain.
Chavez on the other hand would have Cuba, Russia, Belarus and Iran on his side.

Colombian armed forces are bigger, have more experience.
Venezuela has serious problems on every level, there is no electricity and the country is dark after 9pm (currently its illegal to open a business after 9pm).

Colombia would win hands down.

Re:Uh oh

[mwlewis]

So what you're saying is that we've got a lot of corruption...you don't elaborate, but I'm guessing (based on the types of things I've heard about, say, insurance companies) it's things like corporations lobbying and influencing the government that you were thinking about. And the solution is to make the government more powerful, and therefore make it even more important for those corporations to influence government?

So, what should we do about them taking our liberties?

Re:Uh oh

[Vintermann]

Source criticism fail. Honesty win, though.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly the CIA gave him that sway when they unsuccessfully tried to launch a coup against him in 2002 after he nationalized oil production.

Uh, [citation needed]. PDVSA was a state-owned company. What he did was sweeping the whole board of directors to place his loyals.

Very similar to what happened the coup against Mohommad Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950's. The downside is we got caught with our hand in the cookie jar this time around

Again, [citation needed]; it's too easy to paint your favourite bad guys behind everything bad that happens to you. Now tell me these people were all rallied, prodded and herded by CIA operators.

and Chavez has been very carte blanche about dragging it out every time anything critical of him comes out. Its only gotten worse as Chavez has gotten... umm... how to put it nicely... battier?

"Bolder" is the word you're looking for. He was a fan of Castro well before getting elected (he flew frequently to Cuba to meet him, and copied his style in speeches and rallies) but he kept mum about it when he was campaigning in '98. At that time, he slammed corruption, weak governments and selling out to the IMF as the root of Venezuela's evils, and he flatly denied being a socialist or any plans to nationalize companies. Shortly after election, it was all about "savage, inhuman neoliberalism" and put military cronies including fellow coup-mongers in key government positions. A few years later he vowed that Venezuela would sail the same "sea of happiness" as Cuba and started dropping references to socialism. Now he is all for socialism against capitalism in all its forms, and he claims to be marxist (though he admits he hasn't read The Capital).

Its a shame, he was a cool leader when he began; and had a number of revolutionary ideas (even if he completely understood the history of Simon Bolivar).

Oh, that. The Bolívar pseudo-cult. It's been taught in schools since... forever, and it's mostly hot air. HCh promised to rescue his "true" ideals and put them to work in public administration. When he assumed, it was all "Bolivarian This" and "Bolívar That". Now that he shifted his focus to socialism, Bolívar has been silently left out of the name of new projects, and everything is "Socialist X". See the pattern?

Re:Uh oh

[jonadab]

> Any chance of convincing some gray/black hats to ... hack Chavez's websites

There's a more straightforward approach.

If he shuts down opposition TV stations operated within the country, all you have to do is operate a TV station from across the border in Guyana or Brasil or Colombia. Heck, Puerto Rico is almost close enough if you broadcast at a really high power.

This doesn't work so well for geographically large countries like China. You can get your message to the people near the border, but the interior is hard to reach. But Venezuela isn't all that big. About the size of Texas. Put a station near the border in Colombia and one near the border in Guyana or Brasil, and you can reach most of Venezuela.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the 10-year deal, the US military will not only have access to military bases, but also be able to use major international civilian airports.

So? There are US-run military bases in Japan, but it's not like they're invading China anytime soon. Opposition is mostly exploiting national pride to gain some votes, but Colombians are determined to get rid of guerrillas even if it means hosting some gringos in your bases so they can help kick FARC/ELN butt. I hope the "right-wing" paramilitary are next.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Then bring in the Russians. Those ex-KGB guys knew how to run a good disinformation campaign. Throw mud, keep throwing mud, fling mud into real news stories that spin them the wrong way, do everything you can to make the target look incompetent and buffoonish at every turn. Be sure to use deniable cut-outs so that the deceit can't ever be traced directly back to you.

Um, Karl Rove is Russian?

Re:Uh oh

[kill-1]

Then we airlift out the foreign workers and after giving the locals an hour bomb the living sh*t out of the oil fields.

Yeah, freeing the world to death. That strategy has worked so well for the US in the last 60 years.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

My feeling is that if Venezuela attacked Colombia unprovoked (at least in the eyes of the UN SC) it would take very little to see it bombed to smithereens by pretty much all of the western powers. Venezuela's army is modern, but that does not win wars on its own, a modern army (like the Americans) is mostly good *not* to be used for a similarly matched conflict or a protracted war, its power is just to act as a deterrent and to occasionally wipe out vastly inferior armies.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

"make the target look incompetent and buffoonish at every turn."

Good lord! Then the Ruskies must have reactivated entire KGB divisions when Bush was in power to pile some dirt on him. And I never even realized...

Re:Uh oh

[Fred_A]

With how many US troops and PMCs in Columbia? The VZ forces don't train much, the Columbians train and fight alot.

Not to mention that the US and Europe would have to support Volumbia for fear of a drop in cocaine supplies to western markets.

Re:Uh oh

[Fred_A]

Everybody has internet in venezuela. It's not a jungle, you know.

Ok, there's a lot of savannah too...
But seeing how sparse the cell phone coverage is, there isn't that much Internet access in the countryside. I suppose that a lot of urban people have Internet access (and a lot of people are in cities) but outside of that... I doubt a lot of them are connected to a landline. They are not even connected to the electric grid (although this is mostly because petrol is basically free over there so each village has its generators).

Re:Uh oh

[Fred_A]

You look quite fetching in that tin foil hat.

Seriously, you link to World Net Daily? That's the same outfit that rails about UN Peacekeepers building gulags in Kansas, while saying that having the President unilaterally declare citizens "unlawful combatants" and indefinitely imprisoning them without trial and having them tortured is a-okay.

I thought that was The Onion ?
For us Europeans, keeping track of the satirical press in the US isn't easy.
Well another funny rag to read is always nice I suppose, although this one seems to be a bit too far out from the little browsing I've done of their site.

Re:Uh oh

[dwiget001]

|| Um, Karl Rove is Russian? ||

Yes, and so is Rahm Emanuel.

Don't let the Chicago thuggery fool you.

Re:Uh oh

[poetmatt]

what you're saying has no relation to the situation at hand or even what I wrote.

Did you even read what I said? I can tell you didn't.

I'm just saying it takes time to fix a whole lot of corruption. Who said any part of my post means make the government more powerful or less powerful? that has 0 basis on the issue at hand, and is a straw man.

Try to pull the libertarian card a little less there, eh?

Re:Uh oh

[inthealpine]

Chavez uses Pablo Escobar tactics when it comes to the poor. They are just a means to his absolute control. Speech should be protected at all costs and anyone that works in the opposite direction of that goal has their own agenda.

Re:Uh oh

[Wyatt Earp]

It'd be the plot of Mercenaries 2.

Re:Uh oh

[mwlewis]

I did read what you said, and it's true you didn't specify what you thought was going on right now as far as people trying to get rid of corruption.

The main theme of the last year has been increasing the size and role of government. Which is what a lot of the screaming is about. Was there something else you were thinking about? Because that seemed like the most obvious interpretation of your comment.

Re:Uh oh

[daem0n1x]

anything that will make the common people laugh at him, and thereby undermine his social standing from within is just about the only hope Venezuela has left

People can't laugh now. They're too busy doing stuff they never did during the times of "democracy", like getting health care, learning to read and eating.

Re:Uh oh

[allcoolnameswheretak]

"Speech" is worthless if someone has a monopoly on it. Why is all of Europe in dismay about what is going on in Italy with Berlusconi and his right wing party, but all italians love him? Because Berlusconi dominates a huge chunk of the italian media.
Why can Republicans in the US spread ridiculous accusations, fear-mongering and false facts about health care, but have so many people believe everything they say? Because Republicans and their friends dominate a huge chunk of the US media.
In Venezuela you have the same situation. The media in Venezuela is/was dominated by the former, wealthy upper class that tried very hard to spread rumors and lies to have Chavez discredited.

I'm no Chavez supporter, in fact, I think Chavez is a populist and more often than not, a bafoon. Perhaps he is truly consolidating his power now. But what I'm saying is that the wealthy establishment that fights against Chavez never played nice by the rules either.

Re:Uh oh

[daem0n1x]

I got a clue for you, almost all Latin America would take the side of Chavez, including the monsters Brazil and Argentina.

Now you have a clue.

Re:Uh oh

[daem0n1x]

If we really want to convince Venezuelans to get rid of this guy

Why don't you mind your own business and stop trying to teach people what to do in their own countries? Don't you have enough in the US to keep you busy?

stop refining their frickin' oil.

Yeah, good luck with that. Go ahead.

Re:Uh oh

[daem0n1x]

When Chavez screamed "Gringos de mierda! Vayan-se al carajo cien veces!" during a speech, the reactions were diverse:

1. Americans were outraged.
2. Europeans found it funny, though many wouldn't admit it.
3. The rest of the world was amused.
4. Latin Americans (the people, not the few rich) considered him the greatest hero of all times. Reading posts like yours, it's not hard to understand why.

Re:Uh oh

[poetmatt]

apparently whatever magic topics you have in your head have no connotation with reality.

none of what you're talking about was anywhere near the context or implications of what I replied to.

You're freakin crazy dude. Maybe you should get checked for schizophrenia, seriously.

Re:Uh oh

[mwlewis]

That's OK, I'll stop trying to get you to defend the original nonsense I replied to. It's clear you don't have an answer. Or can't follow a conversation. Either way...

Re:Uh oh

[joshuapurcell]

The upcoming election is for the congress, but I fail to understand how that is an argument against what I said. I said that the only reason the article is mentioned at at this time and in this one-sided way is precisely because they are having an election soon.

Re:Uh oh

[ebuck]

Have you listened to a lot of talk radio? There are certainly a number of thought provoking people on the airwaves, but for each one of them there's twenty people spewing non-sequiters and thinly veiled hate speech. A rational argument could be made that all talk radio should be disbanded for the good of our country's educational system.

Personally, I wouldn't want to see talk radio disappear, I'd just want them required to adhere to news standards. By constantly voicing their opinion in "news-like" clothing, they're confusing current issues with inflammatory fantasy. And their audience is eating it up because it's so entertaining. The downside is that we have proven as a nation that people don't think, they repeat what they have been told are good ideas.

It's so bad now that I can't even follow my brother's arguments, because as I just try to ask for an explanation of what he's so worked up about, I get hit with new unrelated arguments. It's like a new argumentative fallacy, if you manage to bewilder your audience, you're right!

Re:Uh oh

[daem0n1x]

I was modded "Troll". Oh, did I hit a nerve?

I have news for you guys, Latin America is not your backyard any more. Live with it.

Re:Uh oh

[An Onerous Coward]

For all but the wealthiest 10% of Venezuela's population, yes, they are much better off now than they were under previous regimes. The lower classes are getting health services, education, and -- horrifying to elitist right wingers like yourself -- political power. Something like 20% of the population was brought up above the poverty line just in the years between 2002 and 2006.

Globovision is basically FOX News in Spanish and on steroids. During the attempted coup against Chavez in 2002, they openly advocated for the coup, deliberately injected false information onto the airwaves (saying that troops were firing on protesters). When the counterprotest began, and the people in the slums came out in massive support of Chavez, they refused to report on it. When they could no longer find anything to spin into a "we are winning" message, they stopped reporting altogether, and ran cartoons instead.

So I don't see much in the way of journalistic ideals coming from them. They are the voice of privilege and corporate power in Venezuela. I would love to see truly independent media in Venezuela, but right now it seems that every outlet is either pro-Chavez propaganda or reactionary propaganda by the economic elites. Neither is particularly healthy for the country.

I'm at a loss to understand why you think the property rights of multinationals, which were often created at gunpoint, or by a handful of corrupt leaders, should be respected. Unless you believe that the resources of a country legitimately belong to a handful of despots with the military muscle to back up their theft.

Re:Uh oh

[rahvin112]

If he started the conflict and was the aggressor nation against Columbia he would not be supported by Brazil or Argentina. They are all sovereign nations and an invasion of one of them by another would not be viewed favorably by the region especially considering his military buildup made Lulu quite nervous.

Re:Uh oh

[daem0n1x]

But why on earth would Chavez invade Colombia?

Re:Uh oh

[inthealpine]

The US media is mostly liberal, not conservative and anyone acknowledges that if they are intellectually honest. These media outlets supported Obama in the election and support him now.
The health care bill is a pile of shit and that's why Democrats couldn't get 60 votes and why they had a hell of a time getting a simple majority(again, Democrats not wanting to sign on to the bill).

I'll just say that the speech that you disagree with most is the speech needing the greatest protection. That's not always easy, and the extent to which a people of law try to obtain those ends is a measure of their desire for a free society.

Re:Uh oh

[oldperson]

"The US media is mostly liberal, not conservative and anyone acknowledges that if they are intellectually honest. "

bullshit. The US media is primarily corporate and the number of corporations has been shrinking fast. In the 80's, 98% of all US media was controlled by 37 corporations. Today it's 8. (For those of you with comprehension problems, that means 8 conservative billionaires control the bulk of US media.) Anti-corporate messages are simply not allowed on US media, and the "liberal" end of the US mainstream media market is only the left wing of the permissible corporate thought. Speakers or programs that attack corporatism as a concept are simply not mentioned. That's not liberal. The fact that you would treat support for Barack Obama, one of the most corporate Democrats, as a marker of liberalism shows how out of touch you are.

The US media is corporate, not liberal.

Re:Uh oh

[Scrameustache]

Colombia (a nation that is not even close to being able to stage a successful attack on a country like Venezuela)

Under the 10-year deal, the US military will not only have access to military bases, but also be able to use major international civilian airports.

So? There are US-run military bases in Japan, but it's not like they're invading China anytime soon.

The U.S., which Japan relies on for its defense, has to proceed cautiously. U.S. diplomats are now dealing with North Korea's arrest of two U.S. journalists on the North Korea-China border on March 17.
The U.S. has been leaning against trying to shoot down the North's projectile and a senior U.S. official this week said the administration has ruled it out.

Colombians are determined to get rid of guerrillas even if it means hosting some gringos in your bases so they can help kick FARC/ELN butt. I hope the "right-wing" paramilitary are next.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) says the 2003-2006 demobilisation of the "brutal, mafia-like, paramilitary coalition known as the AUC (United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia)" was a failure, despite repeated government claims that the paramilitaries no longer exist.
The 122-page report, the result of two years of fieldwork, says that after the demobilisation process had come to an end, new groups almost immediately "cropped up all over the country, taking the reins of the criminal operations that the AUC leadership previously ran."
"The emergence of the successor groups was predictable, in large part due to the Colombian government’s failure to dismantle the AUC’s criminal networks and financial and political support structures during the demobilisations," adds the report, which was released in Bogotá Wednesday.

Re:Uh oh

[inthealpine]

Obama isn't corporate as you are making him out to be. He is fascist in his policies so far, so if that's what you mean I guess that can be our common ground. (and as always I'm not calling anyone a Nazi or Hitler)

As far as saying that MSNBC, CBS, CNN and other such news outlets are conservative is just insane.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

they will never get rid of him. he has done the exact same thing that has been attempted in this country, only as a dictator (and dont kid yourselves, he is a dictator, not a president; the elections there have as much validity as a pedophile heading the FBIs anti-pedo unit) he was more successful than our elected reps in doing it.

what did he do?

he came in during a hard time, gave the poor nearly everything they want, did it by taking it from the middle and upper classes. created and continues to instigate class warfare between the poor and non-poor, while taking state control of every major industry in the country, including oil production. the net result? he will never be kicked out. the poor outnumber the rest by a large degree, so he keeps them happy, and whoever in the minority speaks too loudly against him....gets arrested, as we have seen time and time again.

any of this sound familiar? it should.

Signed,
a former venezuelan citizen.

Re:Uh oh

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Obama isn't corporate as you are making him out to be. He is fascist in his policies so far

Please read up on fascism and get your history straight before spreading bullshit like that. Fascism is about a dominant race, a dominant culture, believing that some races and cultures are inherently better than others. Now please explain to me just how Obamas policies are "fascist".

Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you people? What the fuck do they teach in U.S. schools?

TV owner vs. TV station owner

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first read this, I imagined them breaking down someones front door because the owned a TV and may watched a program critical of Hugo Chavez.

Re:TV owner vs. TV station owner

[Captain Spam]

Give it a few years.

Not last...

[headkase]

This person is the last in line for people with a voice, next up all the little people. A dirty war with lots of "disappeared."

I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ShadowRangerRIT]

I've got no beef with socialism in general, but what Chavez is doing isn't socialism. I'm perpetually annoyed by socialism supporters like Sean Penn who defend Chavez, claiming he is not a dictator. I'm sorry, but taking over the media, rewriting the constitution to remove term limits so he can stay in power indefinitely and possibly attempting to assassinate the democratically elected president of a neighboring country (see the first link) are not the actions of a democratic leader. Combined with the allegations of vote fraud and voter suppression in opposition neighborhoods, the man has crossed that line that divides "pompous but legitimate ruler" from "dictator in all but name."

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

and possibly attempting to assassinate the democratically elected president of a neighboring country (see the first link) are not the actions of a democratic leader.

That depends on the will of the people, doesn't it?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Kvasio]

having lived behind the iron courtain, I could say that socialism or communism leaders never really cared about own ideology. What was important was that the masses should believe in ideology and obey. Have you read the G. Orwell's "Animal Farm" ? Shows nicely how this happened.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Rogerborg]

Oh Christ, Penn's off his meds again? I mean seriously - he should be wearing a jacket with sleeves that wrap all the way around and tie at the back.

Look at the bright side though: the best supporter Chavez can rustle up is Penn. I don't see his policies sweeping the free world any time soon.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fourteen months after his first attempt failed, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez won a referendum Sunday to eliminate term limits"

As the article you linked points out, there was a referendum.

When right-wing US friend Uribe in Columbia tries the same thing, there's complete silence about it in the mainstream media. Who's biased which way now?

Is Colombia's Uribe pulling a Chávez on term limits?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2009/0902/p06s05-woam.html

"Combined with the allegations of vote fraud and voter suppression in opposition neighborhoods, the man has crossed that line that divides "pompous but legitimate ruler" from "dictator in all but name.""

Ah yes, because when it comes to vilifying a left-wing government, allegations are evidence.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but taking over the media, rewriting the constitution to remove term limits so he can stay in power indefinitely and possibly attempting to assassinate the democratically elected president of a neighboring country (see the first link) are not the actions of a democratic leader.

Whereas letting the media write the Law, being able to get reelected indefinitely in the first place or having a fucking king, invading other countries and executing their leaders after a bullshit trial, or organizing coups in all of Latin America because their democratic leaders wanted to send poor children to school are things democratic leaders do, especially in your country,

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly don't understand why I was modded "offtopic".

Take for example, either Barack Obama or Geroge Bush. They were democratically elected presidents of the United States.

Lets say that the people of the United States wanted the democratically elected President of another country (i.e. Iraq, Iran) assassinated. In a democracy, the government is either controlled by the people or representatives of the people. It would be the duty of the democratically elected government to execute the will of the people. Does it matter how the target to-be-executed leader was elected? No. They could be a democracy. They could be an autocracy. They could be an oligarchy. It doesn't matter. The whole goal of a democracy is to represent the will of the people.

Perhaps whoever modded me off-topic perceives that I agree with Chavez' goals. That is wholly wrong. I'm a die-hard libertarian. But one must acknowledge that governments often:

a. do assassinations
b. do them on the will of the people

If the people want someone dead in a democracy, that's that. It isn't contrary the the ideology of democracy. On the opposite, it affirms what the democratic process is all about.

My question simply was directed to bring this point across.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

I visited Venezuela in 2005. There was definitely some opposition towards Chavez, but for the most part, the average person really likes him. He's brought good health care, and other programs very popular with the poor to Venezuela. The most interesting thing I saw was a building that had some anti-chavez graffiti one night, and the next day it was covered up with a large graffiti style picture of a nature scene.

I talked to a member of the opposition party. For the most part, the people who didn't like Chavez were the ones who had money. The poor masses liked the social programs he had going, however there's no good way to gauge what level of dissent there really is, because of things like the incident I described above. Personally, I think it will take a large amount of external pressure, or some major upheaval within the country before the status quo is upturned. Since the government controls 90% of the oil (and therefore the biggest source of wealth in the country), change is improbable.

 

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

"having lived behind the iron courtain, I could say that socialism or communism leaders never really cared about own ideology."

You are mistaking socialism/communism for dictatorship/totalitarianism.
It's a common mistake.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Kvasio]

ok, if you're keeping to the literal meaning of communism, then probably no state has even implemented it.
On the other hand if you read Marx, you may find that besides describing ideal 'utopia' society, he also gave hints on the how leaders may rule masses, which had nothing to do with "communism, as advertised" :-)

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got no beef with socialism in general, but what Chavez is doing isn't socialism. I'm perpetually annoyed by socialism supporters like Sean Penn who defend Chavez, claiming he is not a dictator. I'm sorry, but taking over the media, rewriting the constitution to remove term limits so he can stay in power indefinitely and possibly attempting to assassinate the democratically elected president of a neighboring country (see the first link) are not the actions of a democratic leader. Combined with the allegations of vote fraud and voter suppression in opposition neighborhoods, the man has crossed that line that divides "pompous but legitimate ruler" from "dictator in all but name."

Chavez is the biggest coward the world has as a leader of a country. Ok, maybe there are others who are worse. I just cannot think of any in present time. Maybe Iran's jack#ss.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The country has been mismanaged to the hilt, and all of the people are coming around to that. Do you think the poor appreciate the war zone-like conditions there? I live 15 miles from Venezuela and I wouldn't even consider going there. It's just too dangerous. The new rich elite Chavistas (see Animal Farm for an explanation of how this works) are the only people doing well in the new Venezuela.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[coaxial]

Well in all honesty, he's not quite a dictator, since there still are binding elections, which he does occasionally lose. Now that doesn't mean he doesn't want to be a dictator. He's certainly setting himself up as one, and his actions clearly show that he wants no opposition to his rule. Keep in mind, Hugo Chavez came to (inter)national attention during the failed 1992 coup against Pérez.

What is really interesting is that Venezuela is falling apart (perhaps most bizarrely having massive blackouts in an OPEC country) because he placed political ideology above practical needs, and got predictable results.

Is he a dictator? I think he's worse than that. He's a pudgy tin horn wannabe dictator, that revels in the trying externalizing his own short comings on the yanqis. He's a threat to no one except perhaps his own people, and maybe not even to them beyond an economic threat.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[coaxial]

If the people want someone dead in a democracy, that's that. It isn't contrary the the ideology of democracy. On the opposite, it affirms what the democratic process is all about.

No. That's not that. That's not democracy. That's mob rule. That's why we have the rule of law. Due process, and the rights of the minority.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ArsonSmith]

What are you talking about? This was the Fox News channel of Venezuela. I applaud their effort to get rid of the anti-progressive government ideas. They need to do the same thing to Fox News here. Fucking right wing republican morons. We tried freedom, it didn't work, move on.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Kvasio]

please note, that as a foreigner/stranger you may have been treated with caution and suspicion.
Not every society is used to being straight-forward and truth-speaking :-)

I'm not saying that citizens of Venezueal are liars.

I'm just saying, that when you live in more and more controlled state (perhaps not yet totalitarian, but on the way), you may not want to criticize the goverment and your belived great leader, because God knows if what you reveal to the stranger won't reach the officials. He might be a spy, or a state security service agent.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[BlueStrat]

Look at the bright side though: the best supporter Chavez can rustle up is Penn. I don't see his policies sweeping the free world any time soon.

Chavez has supporters right in the Obama administration. One is Obamas' "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd at the FCC. Talk about a scary scenario, having a guy like Lloyd in a position of power over the nations' communications!

Here's a quote from Mark Lloyd, speaking at the June 10, 2008 National Conference for Media Reform (NCMR)in Minneapolis, Minnesota:

"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

-And we've had complaints about this ever since."

You can see the video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ffAP5ixhg

Apparently Chavez' policies are already "sweeping the free world" in the form of the Obama administration, since this statement from Lloyd hasn't been disavowed by anyone in the administration.

Anyone who voices dissent with Obama administration policies on radio/TV and even on the internet should be prepared. There will be a campaign launched to demonize you, painting you as "dangerous" and "promoting violence" and attempting to smear you by conflating voicing your dissent with a few nutjobs (which exist on both sides) who may commit some violent act. You will be fined, taxed, audited, and they'll ultimately will shut you down & silence you if they can.

A Brave New World, indeed!

Strat

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

A Democracy is mob rule, we (in the USA) live in a representative republic, not a democracy.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mistaking socialism/communism for dictatorship/totalitarianism.
It's a common mistake.

Produce a list with two columns. In the first put all of the socialist/communist countries that turned to dictatorship/totalitarianism. In the second, all socialist/communist countries that managed to avoid dictatorship/totalitarianism.

But forget history, in your socialist/communist country, you would rule benignly and everything would be kittens and marshmallows.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[blahplusplus]

"Combined with the allegations of vote fraud and voter suppression in opposition neighborhoods"

Except lets not mention the history of plunder of south america by americans and various peoples of the world shall we? Nor the constant lies and misinformation the US constantly puts out about Venezuela.

http://www.amazon.com/Open-Veins-Latin-America-Centuries/dp/0853459908/

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Mongoose Disciple]

Anyone who voices dissent with Obama administration policies on radio/TV and even on the internet should be prepared. There will be a campaign launched to demonize you, painting you as "dangerous" and "promoting violence" and attempting to smear you by conflating voicing your dissent with a few nutjobs (which exist on both sides) who may commit some violent act.

That's not entirely unfair.

I mean, if you tell people often enough that Obama is just the same as Hitler and he'll take away all your freedom if he isn't stopped, and someone who watched/listened to your show tries to shoot him, what responsibility do you bear for that? It's not 100%, it's not even over 50%, but it's sure as hell not 0% either.

Alternate non-hypothetical example: Bill O'Reilly and the murder of George Tiller.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ScentCone]

You are mistaking socialism/communism for dictatorship/totalitarianism

Not really. Only a totalitarian state can force productive people to be slaves to non-productive people. The two modes are part and parcel of the whole.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Kvasio]

there was joke told in central Europe (formet soviet satellites):

introduce socialism in countries in the Sahara desert area, and in 3 years they will be shortages of sand.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? This was the CNN channel of Venezuela. I applaud their effort to get rid of the progressive government ideas. They need to do the same thing to CNN here. Fucking left wing democrat morons. We tried socialism, it didn't work, move on.

Yep, I agree with you 100%.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Technically, Britain is pretty darn socialist. And Chile turned totalitarian because the legitimately elected socialist government was overthrown by the military. Communism is impractical, yes, but socialism is fine in moderation. Don't conflate the two.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

the man has crossed that line that divides "pompous but legitimate ruler" from "dictator in all but name."

He is the sort of "dictator" that happens to get elected again and again. If lack of term limits makes you a dictator, then surely Helmut Kohl, who ruled Germany from 1982 to 1998, was also a dictator, eh? As your own source about him "rewriting the constitution" makes clear, any change to the constitution of Venezuela has to be approved by referendum. "Dictator in all but name" my ass, they don't even have the death penalty in Venezuela. You know what tough internet laws were enacted after he complained about lies on blogs and Twitter? None. Nothing happened. The word "pompous" fits the bill. It also fits for people who call anybody whom they don't like a dictator. But he is reeeeally annoying, no? The Emmanuel Goldstein of US TV.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[h4rr4r]

Capitalism does that too. I know plenty of execs that don't do jack.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[DesScorp]

"I've got no beef with socialism in general, but what Chavez is doing isn't socialism."

I really get tired of hearing this old canard... "This isn't really socialism. Socialism really has never been tried". Bunk. This is exactly where socialism goes. There's always people that refuse to play along, and this is what happens to them.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[blahplusplus]

"What was important was that the masses should believe in ideology and obey."

You mean like americans?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[DesScorp]

"having lived behind the iron courtain, I could say that socialism or communism leaders never really cared about own ideology."

You are mistaking socialism/communism for dictatorship/totalitarianism.
It's a common mistake.

Well it's awfully damn convienient that whenever someone starts a socialist or communist government, they always happen to end up a dictator. So they've killed and starved perhaps hundreds of millions over the past century, but hey, they just didn't do it right, is that it? Lets give 'em another chance?

They always turn out to be dictators because, surprise surprise, socialism and communism are ripe for that kind of system. If you can declare things like property rights null and void "for the people", then there's nothing that you cant take or abolish.... for the people, of course.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[George_Ou]

The difference is that people willingly work for their bosses and they can always get a different job or just quit. In a socialist nation, you have no choice.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[h4rr4r]

Yeah, just look at how terrible life is in those socialist Scandinavian countries.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Cassius Corodes]

Which is why the US has never been able to enslave or discriminate against minorities at the will of the majority...

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[h4rr4r]

Yeah, look at the socialist hellholes those Scandinavian nations are. Such terrible places.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Mitchell314]

Look up the definition of "republic", "democracy", and "representative government." The do us all a favor and give yourself a big face palm. We live in a representative democracy, that's a democracy and a republic (non exclusive things). There's also direct democracy, aka "mob" rule.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Wyatt Earp]

So its OK to stifle speech if its not speech you like?

Take Limbaugh and Beck out back and shoot them, or just sentence them to reeducation somewhere?

I like this, at the national level you banish the Republicans while in conservative states and counties the liberals will get muted. Brilliant plan.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Homburg]

rewriting the constitution to remove term limits so he can stay in power indefinitely

You mean like those terrible dictatorships Britain, or Germany, or Canada? Or that terrible dictatorship, the US before 1951? I don't get this recent obsession with term limits as a shibboleth of democracy. If the Venezuelan people keep voting for Chavez indefinitely, why shouldn't he stay in power indefinitely? There's nothing dictatorial about the person who wins an election becoming the president; quite the contrary.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[h4rr4r]

And go work someplace else that has the same situation?

Capitalism is one man taking advantage of the other, Communism is the other way around.

Socialism is something else, for example people in Sweden can freely quit their jobs.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Galeano is stupid. Who the fuck you think South Americans are? Natives? Most, in the more or less civilized nations in the region, are of European ascent. Venezuela is no more no less a classic case of populism, like Vargas in Brazil or Perón in Argentina. The nations you say "plundered" South America actually built it all. Every single industry. I could only dream of US annexing all this shit. And I say this as a South American.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

By American standards, yes, it's awful.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[coaxial]

I suggest you go back to the dictionary. Your attempt at being pedantic is full of fail.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[George_Ou]

You're saying socialism is being able to go on the dole but still make a pretty decent living. What you really mean is that socialism is communism living off of the fat of capitalism. It "works" in Sweden with a horrendous tax load on the working people of Sweden. But even then, the Swedes have had the benefit of a relatively homogenous society with some core values like not getting on the dole just because you can. This is becoming problematic for them as more imigrants are going into the country without those same values.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[danlip]

<pendantic>I believe the term you are looking for is constitutional republic. "Constitutional" is the key here, because the constitution means the majority can't do whatever they want, they have to obey the restrictions in the constitution. "representative" is redundant with "republic", since republic already implies it is not a direct democracy.</pendantic>

(the first point, that democracy implies mob rule, is correct, and is what the founding fathers were afraid of, and why they made the constitution the way it is)

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[spiffmastercow]

In the first column, Asia. In the second column, Europe.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[fiannaFailMan]

Well it's awfully damn convienient that whenever someone starts a socialist or communist government, they always happen to end up a dictator.

Harold Wilson was a dictator? Tony Blair ended up a dictator?! Gordon Brown is a dictator?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[fiannaFailMan]

Anyone who voices dissent with Obama administration policies on radio/TV and even on the internet should be prepared. There will be a campaign launched to demonize you, painting you as "dangerous" and "promoting violence" and attempting to smear you by conflating voicing your dissent with a few nutjobs (which exist on both sides) who may commit some violent act. You will be fined, taxed, audited, and they'll ultimately will shut you down & silence you if they can.

A Brave New World, indeed!

Strat

Fuck off! The only people being protrayed as dangerous are the Fox "News" watching Timothy McVeigh types showing up with automatic weapons when the President rolls into town to explain why it's a bad idea to let profit-making insurance companies refuse to treat the sick citing trumped up excuses. You people had no such tinfoil hat tendencies when your freedoms really were being undermined by the USA PATRIOT act. Odd, that.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of that information came from a conversation with a higher up in the nationalized oil industry. He was self-admittedly against Chavez, but that was his explanation as to why he didn't see Venezuela leaving Chavez's hands any time soon.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

He tried but failed to remove term limits from the constitution, why are you lying?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently Chavez' policies are already "sweeping the free world" in the form of the Obama administration, since this statement from Lloyd hasn't been disavowed by anyone in the administration.

Lloyd's position within the Obama administration is roughly the same as that of head dogcatcher in a small town. Sure, he's shooting off his mouth, but no one gives a fuck because he's a fucking dogcatcher. If by some chance he says something that gets back to the mayor or the city council and they doesn't like it then there will be a new head dogcatcher PDQ.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for morons like you to come marching down my street. I have a nice .306 just waiting for you.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[h4rr4r]

You not a fan of skinny broads?
You should try visiting some of those countries.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[h4rr4r]

Can we just get the one the drug help he so badly needs?

Why people want to listen to the ravings of a drug addict I will never understand.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. There's no difference between Steve Jobs and Ken Lay, right?

Dumbshit.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither socialism nor communism advocate free rides for anyone, only a redistribution of the means of production.

By the way, are you claiming socialist countries like Norway are totalitarian?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Dude, you are a nut or a lemming.

I listened to that video and what you took away from it is the worst possible interpretation. It's like you aren't interested in hearing what he said, only what you wanted him to say.

The video starts off with the guy decrying state controlled media and using the Rwandan massacre as an example. That ought to be a big clue as to his point of view right there. When he cites Venezuela, he's not endorsing Chavez, he's using the actions of oligopoly media in Venezuela at the time to support a coup rather than democratic change. In other words he's citing two examples of extremes - abusive state control of media and abusive private control of media.

You may be all for a coup to throw Chavez out, but he was democratically elected and at the time he certainly was a change for the better in the country - the percentage of people living poverty in Venezeula had more than doubled to two-thirds of the population over the two decades prior to his election. Just because he's gone overboard since then doesn't mean he didn't start off working to improve things, which is what that FCC guy was referring to with "begin to place things."

As for the "and we've had complaints about this ever since" line -- sounds to me like he's referring to the the CIA's involvement in the coup attempt - and I don't see a problem there, we constantly hear complaints about China and Israel trying to influence the US government, if they were part of an actual coup attempt in the US, we would never hear the last of it, we'd probably go to war over it.

Kind of funny-sad how going to google for this background info, all I got was a vast echo-chamber of blogs, none of them doing anything beyond parroting the invective, not one of them that I checked could be bothered to raise a single skeptical eyebrow instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ScentCone]

Capitalism is one man taking advantage of the other,

No. Capitalism is two people agreeing to a mutually beneficial exchange of goods, services, work, assets, etc. If you're bad at it, you won't be as successful as someone who is better at it. If you don't do anything of value, you can't demand as much value in exchange.

Communism is the other way around.

No, Communism is the person who produces the least getting the most benefit from the person who works the hardest. It punishes hard work, and rewards mediocrity and laziness. Mostly, it rewards the statists who play the middleman.

Socialism is something else, for example people in Sweden can freely quit their jobs

Socialism is still the productive people working for the non-productive people. It's less militant, but it's still the same deal with the devil. It pays lip service to extra hard work's rewards, but is still the use of force to punish that hard work by handing the fruit of that work to those who couldn't or wouldn't do it themselves. The only places where a veneer of this appears to work is in places like Sweden where the culture has a strong historical work ethic. That's now starting to fall apart, as that culture is poisoned from the outside.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Scrameustache]

I'm sorry, but taking over the media, rewriting the constitution to remove term limits so he can stay in power indefinitely and possibly attempting to assassinate the democratically elected president of a neighboring country (see the first link) are not the actions of a democratic leader. Combined with the allegations of vote fraud and voter suppression in opposition neighborhoods, the man has crossed that line that divides "pompous but legitimate ruler" from "dictator in all but name."

Again with the obsession with term limits. What about Uribe? Is he a dictator too?

Thursday, 29 April, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3670385.stm
Colombia's main opposition Liberal Party says it will reject a bill aimed at giving President Alvaro Uribe the chance of four more years in power.
The party said it opposed changing the law to let Mr Uribe run again in 2006.

February 26, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100227/ts_nm/us_colombia_uribe
BOGOTA (Reuters) – A court blocked Colombian President Alvaro Uribe on Friday from running for re-election, making his former defense minister the favorite to succeed the Washington ally in a May presidential election.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

>...whenever someone starts a socialist or communist government, they always happen to end up a dictator.

Uh oh, better tell that to Western Europe!

A better rule might be, "whenever someone becomes ruler of a second or third world nation, there's a disproportionate likelihood of that person becoming a dictator."

The issue for a prospective dictator is how to come to power. At the widest view, there are too roads:

1) The low road, where you derive your power from the poor. If you take this route, the trappings of socialism are a convenient means to the end. The downside is that the poor and dispossessed may not have the resources to propel you to the heights of absolute control. Relying on the weak to gain power is fraught with contradiction.

2) The high road, where the base of your power is the elite. Here you simply accumulate enough wealth and backing of the existing powers to rewrite the laws however you see fit, while simply being careful not to piss off the teeming masses so much that they storm the presidential palace. This shouldn't be too hard since the masses are probably more-or-less resigned to corrupt and ineffective governance to begin with. An advantage of this strategy is that you don't have to pretend to represent any coherent philosophy beyond that of simply "making yourself and your inner circle rich beyond mortal desire by plundering the wealth of an entire nation."

In either case, be careful to gain the allegiance of the army. They can be your ally or enemy in either case. Know your generals and enlisted men equally! The choice between (1) and (2) may depend on the sympathies of the army or other state security apparatus.

If your only allegiance is within the army and security forces, you may want to consider a simple coup d'état. Beware, however, that not all countries and governments are susceptible to coups, so you may have to make do with a less desirable country if you choose this route.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ScentCone]

Neither socialism nor communism advocate free rides for anyone

Well sure, they're not going to come right out and say that. Workers of the world unite, man!

Regardless, the free ride is delivered. Which is exactly why entire populations of leeches are moving to socialist democracies in western Europe in order to get a piece of the free pie ... and thus shining a light on what a house of cards it all is.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Opportunist]

Oh, so that's what a two party dictatorship is called?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[shutdown -p now]

Produce a list with two columns. In the first put all of the socialist/communist countries that turned to dictatorship/totalitarianism. In the second, all socialist/communist countries that managed to avoid dictatorship/totalitarianism.

The second list would be empty as well, because there were no "socialist/communist countries" from the get go - at all. They all started as dictatorships.

More specifically, Soviet Russia started as a dictatorship, and then spread its particular brand of "communism" far and wide. And, while stamping out all opposition, it was particularly ruthless to any deviations "within the ranks" (as any other religion - a heretic is considered worse than an unbeliever).

The only really independent attempt at building what had some signs of growing into a true communist council democracy, as it is meant to be, was crushed by those very same people who would then form the core of the Nazi party.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when can I actually choose to work for a business owner who is productive? And who doesn't profit off of my work? And who gives me an informed say in how I do my job?

Individually, we as workers in a capitalist economy can choose among a nearly infinite variety of exploiters. We can even choose to be unproductive ourselves, although this decision generally brings with it serious negative consequences (so much for "willingly" working!). But the working class cannot choose to be be productive for ourselves, free from the non-productive class.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[shutdown -p now]

The difference is that people willingly work for their bosses and they can always get a different job or just quit.

Do you seriously think that people can always "just get a different job"?

Unregulated free market inevitably breeds monopolies, and not the least one of them is monopoly on jobs (well, technically it would be a monopsony, I guess). You're absolutely free to do as you will, of course - you can either work, or you can starve to death.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ShadowRangerRIT]

What the hell is going on with /.'s moderation system? The parent post started with a +2 from Karma, a little while later it had jumped to +5, now it's down to +3. Okay, I understand, maybe someone disagreed and modded it down. Except the only mods I see are:

• 30% Informative
• 20% Insightful
• 20% Interesting

How did I start with +2, get (apparently) a +1 each for those three categories, and then drop to +3? I note that there is 30% left over, which might be a downmod that would cancel the Informative, but even then it should be +4. Can the mod system only show 3 moderations? Or is the system screwing with me? It doesn't matter much (I've got excellent and I'm in no danger of losing it), but I'm genuinely curious.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Glenn Beck logic at its finest, folks.

Yell about something and when no one tells you they were mistaken or misrepresented you assume you're correct. The actual truth is that no one is listening to you.

And then when the person comes out and says, "Okay, I'll appease you idiots." you ignore him.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200909230041

There's the info on this falsehood.

Anyone, and I mean anyone who exercises their right to voice an opinion can be misquoted by the pundits in this country. And you wonder why the media is under attack?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but when did fact checking go out the window?

The great downfall of society will be the loss of integrity that we're seeing the seeds of today.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[shutdown -p now]

Well it's awfully damn convienient that whenever someone starts a socialist or communist government, they always happen to end up a dictator.

Some people didn't do that, but somehow they end up being murdered all the time.

Oh, and can you point at one other example of someone starting a socialist or communist government (i.e. the one that labels itself such), that didn't start as a dictatorship?

Or, say, a communist country which was started independently, without (totalitarian) Soviet help, apart from the USSR itself?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ShadowRangerRIT]

He succeeded the next time around. Read the article.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[painandgreed]

Well it's awfully damn convienient that whenever someone starts a socialist or communist government, they always happen to end up a dictator. So they've killed and starved perhaps hundreds of millions over the past century, but hey, they just didn't do it right, is that it? Lets give 'em another chance?

I think the real issue is that it's awfully damn convienient that when ever someone starts a government, they always happen to end up a dictator. Imagine that, when somebody has the chance to put themselves in charge with absolute authority, they do. Communism/Socialism/Democratic/Religion is usually just an excuse to get the people to fall in behind and help them overthrow the other guy first.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Wyatt Earp]

I never understood people listening to Limbaugh back 18 years ago before he was outed as a drug addict.

Or do you mean the other drug addict I can't stand Glenn Beck?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Improv]

I'm a socialist, and skeptical of broad democracy. Nontheless, I condemn Chavez - his actions look more like a nation-driven ego trip, not an attempt to better society. He may have started out with a number of measures to benefit the people, and he may still be pursuing some of them, but in order to be effective, socialism must not be led by people like Chavez, it must tolerate inner criticism (not the half-assed "Democratic Centralism" that many historical socialists have advocated), and it must not insist on the kind of pomp and universal support that kings of times past advocated.

Lese Majeste and media controls are a lousy foundation for a society regardless of how well-intentioned reformers are. A society does not need to be democratic, and it should not be capitalist, but it must keep its feet firmly on the ground, or it risks becoming far worse than the capitalist systems it would replace. Chavez should be viewed by my fellow socialists as an embarassment, and as a menace to everyone.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't just "go on the dole" and sit and do nothing. You will be forced to do lots of stuff, like trying to get a job, or they won't pay you for long.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Improv]

Yeah, longer life, better education, better healthcare, generally happier people.

Awful. I'm glad we don't have anything like that here.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in "a place like Sweden" and I would say that the system works just fine as it is most of the time. What is forcing changes in the current system is mostly that the law is made by the politicians and being a politician == being in the most wealthy part of the people and being in the most wealthy part of the people gives you a higher chance of getting a good education which == a bigger chance of becoming a politician.

Most people vote what benefit themselves the most and since the poor and sick who need financial help is a minority the system is gradually changing to "take from the poor, give to the rich".

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[royallthefourth]

When anti-communism is allowed to work, like in Greece after WWII, freedom reigns supreme.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[OrwellianLurker]

You not a fan of skinny broads?

THEY'RE STARVING!

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism is not one man taking advantage of another. It can be when it's restricted but it has nothing like that within it's operation by default.

Capitalism is providing a service or product for a fee. If it's not overly restricted, then those services and products will be reasonably priced and those involved will be reasonably compensated for their part in creating/delivering them. This is because other competitors could and would jump in taking most of the business away if it wasn't reasonably priced or compensated.

Suppose you owned some land and cut trees down (and replanted them) to make rocking chairs and other furnature that you sold. Suppose that you cut the trees down in the summer and made the rocking chairs in the winter. Now who would you be taking advantage of? Now suppose you hired 2 people to help you, they are only going to work if the pay/compensation is satisfactory to them, so who is being taken advantage of there? People will not purchase your product if it isn't prices within a range they are willing to pay, so who is being taken advantaged of there? That is capitalism.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

On the Satisfaction with Life Index the Scandinavian countries rank 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 19th, while the USA is 23rd. If one uses the Human Development Index instead, the Scandinavian countries rank 1st, 3rd, 7th, 12th, and 16th, while the USA is 13th. They seem to be happy and prosperous countries with a high quality of life, and are likely nicer places to live than the USA.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[clarkkent09]

So you have a problem with totalitarianism but not with socialism? Ok, lets try to understand what is meant by the word socialism:

- redistribution of wealth by the government so as to create a more egalitarian society
- collective (i.e. state) ownership of the means of production and distribution
- central planning of the economic activity

Which of these are compatible with personal freedom of the individual members of the society? Or, do you not consider that important?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

"Socialism will be free, or it will not be at all." -- Rudolph Rocker

Socialist countries are always contradictory: socialism has always meant a democratic and horizontal economy, but the state is necessarily vertical - rulers at the top, the ruled at the bottom - no matter how "democratic" it is or claims to be.

You point out, rightly, that if one small group can set the rules "for the people," that group's corruption and abuse of power is not a matter of if but of when. An anti-authoritarian, anti-vanguard approach to socialism would limit, and has been shown to limit (in Spain, the Ukraine, and Chiapas), the evils of socialism and communism.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ShadowRangerRIT]

You're defining communism, not socialism. Some level of redistribution exists in socialist societies, but lasted I checked, Richard Branson is still a billionaire. I'd ask the British. Or the Scandinavians. Maybe they can explain the difference between socialism and communism to you.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm, productive people being slaves of non-productive people... seems like the USA to me, where we give our tax dollars so corporate moguls from broken wall street ponzi scams can keep flying their private jets. If you are someone "productive" in the US you know you are a "slave" of some non-productive mofo, either the government officials that fine you for anything so they can steal your money if you are a small company owner, or some corporate mogul if you work for one of the big corp.

So, wake up and remember our freedom in the USofA ended with the PATRIOT act, FOREVER!

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Really ? I thought that was name capitalism...

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism is one man trading peacefully with another. Communism is one man taking forcefully from another. If you're thinking of America, remember that she has never been fully Capitalist except perhaps during and immediately after the revolutionary war, when almost anything went and the government wasn't yet robbing people at gunpoint.

But people in Sweden do not have much say in what their money(production) is spent on, which is the essence of a totalitarian state.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[clarkkent09]

Well I looked it up in a dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism and wikipedia. I understand what you mean, I just think you are misusing the word socialism. What they have in Scandinavia and to some degree in Britain is a capitalist system, except they throw in high taxation which pays for a substantial safety net and other social services (in other words the welfare state).

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[jhol13]

You are right, we are the slaves of the investment bankers.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Rising Ape]

How is Britain socialist? The Labour party ditched outright socialism a long time ago, and they made no attempt to, for example, reverse the Tories' privatization of electricity, gas, water, telecoms and rail.

Now we seem to have settled on capitalism with a welfare state, which is still basically capitalist.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[jmorris42]

> Unregulated free market inevitably breeds monopolies,

Actually it is the opposite. Point to a monopoly that existed for more than a decade or so without the power of the State behind it.

Rent seeking Corporatism shouldn't be confused with Capitalism.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Rising Ape]

>Socialism is still the productive people working for the non-productive people.

When socialism originated the intention was for it to be the opposite of this state, which existed under capitalism at the time (and still does effectively, but not as dramatically). You had the capitalists, who owned factories and companies, and the workers who did not but had to sell their labour. The workers would actually do the work and produce while most of the benefits went to the owners as profit. The whole point of socialism was that the workers should own the means of production, thus avoiding this issue.

Your analysis is only true at a micro-level, and ignores the environment in which these allegedly "agreed exchanges" take place. Just look at *history* - extremely dangerous working conditions, child labour, sweatshops. Unattractive, but if the only alternative is that or starve, you will inevitably make the "beneficial exchange" even if the benefits of the transaction are vastly skewed against you.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[jhol13]

Who has started a socialist or communist government and where? When?

The claim "this is communist government and therefore poor get a share" and "we give tax cuts to the rich and there will be trickle down effect" (the golden shower economic theory) are far too similar, IMHO - both are given just to keep people quiet and obedient.

Claim that "socialism and communism are ripe for dictatorship" is utterly idiotic, the dictators in the history have used pretty much every excuse there is. S&C were just a new fad to convince people to be oppressed.

Besides, isn't "for the people" better than "for the international company"? There are quite a few examples how international companies buy land etc. in the third world. You can claim "free market means fair price", but it isn't (either).

We should oppose too much power, whether it is accomplished in disguise of communism or money - after all, they are the same.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Dun Malg]

there were no "socialist/communist countries" from the get go - at all. They all started as dictatorships.

Here's the dirty little secret about communism on a national scale: it requires totalitarian control. Humans are unable to effectively operate cooperatively on a scale beyond what is loosely defined as the "tribal" level. Evolution has developed in us a strong predilection towards protection of our close genetic relations at the expense of non-relations. The only way to override this predilection is with the threat of force. Marx hinted at this, and Lenin & co all but admitted to it with their preposterous notion of a "vanguard" of "equals". Young intellectuals sipping coffee in a cafe can prattle on about the meaning of "real" communism, but it's all a load of crap. Theoretical communism is self-delusional mental masturbation. Real communism is pointing a gun at someone and saying "all that is yours is now collective", then loading all their grain onto a truck to be "redistributed" to the vanguard (we must keep our strength up to lead!) while the farmer barely survives.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[shutdown -p now]

Point to a monopoly that existed for more than a decade or so without the power of the State behind it.

I can't, because there was no period in human history wherein State didn't intervene into the market to some extent. Every time we tried to let it loose, it crashed hard and fast - we're still going through the consequences of such a crash at the moment, and if you look at countries which suffered most, it's usually those with more deregulated economies. Just compare US and Canada...

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[BeShaMo]

None of those are necessarily bad things, and every society on earth that I am aware of implements all three at least to some extend.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[joshuapurcell]

I assume you are referring to the type of government we have here in the US: plutocracy, corporatocracy, or something along those lines. Definitely not a democracy. In a democracy, the people elect a representative to do something they want... the last part being a critical point. And the the self-described anonymous libertarian with a kindergarten understanding of what democracy is in post #31619844 is a complete asshat.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[joshuapurcell]

Wow, you must live in a place where there is equality of opportunity! Please tell me of this magical place so that all of us can get there as fast as possibly and all be able to take advantage of all opportunities to as much degree as we would like to. If you don't live in such a place, then you obviously can't see past your nose.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[jmorris42]

> Every time we tried to let it loose, it crashed hard and fast - we're still going through the consequences of such a crash at the moment..

I think I see your problem. The current mess was not a failure of Capitalism. This mess started with ACORN (The One was their lawyer for some of it) and the rest of the misfit army using legal and threats of physical violence to pressure the banks into making home loans to people who shouldn't have been given a payday loan. When that only produced limited success Freddie and Fannie were recruited by Congress into the deal, agreeing to take bad paper from the banks if they would make a certain percentage of their loans to the moocher population. The banking system still had the problem of what to do with all this toxic paper so the invented various complex financial instruments to pass the hot potatos around the world.

And just to spread the blame widely this problem begins with Carter the Idiot's Community Reinvestment Act and went all the way to Bush the Younger who was in up to his arse in this daft notion that home ownership should be 'universal.' Spread a little blame to Barney the Faggot who was pushing banks to loan to losers to while buggering a senior officer over at Fannie/Freddie. Doddering old Dodd was too busy being a Friend of Angelo to do his job as a member of the Banking Committee.

And of course another heaping helping of blame has to go to whoever allowed the old investment/banking houses of yore to become too big to be allowed to fail public corporations run by snot nosed marxist trained Harvard/Yale MBA types who didn't exactly need a lot of pressure to allow the shareholder assets entrusted to their care to be diverted to 'Social Justice.' The old school Jew bankers who built houses like Goldman and Lehman, with green eyeshades and no time for fools, who OWNED big hunks of the damned bank as partnerships (and would thus lose their ass instead of popping a golden parachute) would have never got goobered into making loans that couldn't possibly be repaid.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[joshuapurcell]

I think many people confuse people's desire for opportunities with a desire for a free ride.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[joshuapurcell]

+1 You actually are right though, some people in the US don't actually want to have to do anything related to supporting anyone but themselves. In other words, they want to be divorced from all social responsibilities. Regardless of this subset of our society, these social responsibilities (not only internal to our nation but also to the world) must be met or we will all continue to face the consequences of the inevitable problems that arise.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

> but he was democratically elected and at the time he certainly was a change for the better in the country

I have heard the same said of GWBush

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[coaxial]

You are wrong on all points.

A democracy is a form of government where the citizens vote. It can either be a direct democracy where the citizens vote -- wait for it -- directly on the laws. (i.e a plebiscite or referendum) (which, we have at the state and local levels) or a representative democracy, where the people vote for -- wait for it -- a representative. The word comes from the Greek word dimokratia, which means "popular government," or "the people's government."

A republic is a government where the public chooses their leaders. The word comes from the Latin phrase res publica, which means "a public affair."

Now let me spell this out for slow learners in the group. THESE ARE NOT OPPOSING IDEAS!

Come on people. They cover this in 5th grade social studies. This argument hinges on pseudohyperintellectualism that has not been seen since Oswald Bates left television. Even PJ O'Rourke doesn't understand this "controversy".

Stop. Just stop.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[shutdown -p now]

I've heard all the fancy tales about Freddie & Fannie etc a thousand times. They are thoroughly debunked all over the Net - literally, JFGI.

Better tell me what. US banking industry is a complete mess post-crash, while Canadian one is fine. The difference is that Canadian banks were significantly more regulated, and specifically the government limited how risky they could get with handing out credits, and investing money. When push came to shove, they lost money alright, but nowhere near enough to collapse, or even need any major assistance. What come?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't live in any of them. Taxes and social spending are too high. I neither need nor want the government to take care of me as if I am their child.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ShakaUVM]

>>I've got no beef with socialism in general, but what Chavez is doing isn't socialism.

I think the word you're looking for is communism, and it is.

Communism very naturally results in restrictions on freedom of speech (thought enemies) and other liberties (shutting down power to opposition companies), and a general disregard for natural rights.

Remember, by the communist mindset (and socialists and even liberals reflect this concept to lesser degrees), Pravda (greater truth) is much more important than mere factual truth. You don't let mere facts get in the way of the bigger story. The fact that millions of your people are starving to death is not counterfactual to our great strides forward with collectivized agriculture, comrade. Upton Sinclair thought that Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent, but he wrote Boston anyway. Etc., ad nauseum.

Power is more important than liberty or truth.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[jpmorgan]

You had the capitalists, who owned factories and companies, and the workers who did not but had to sell their labour. The workers would actually do the work and produce while most of the benefits went to the owners as profit. The whole point of socialism was that the workers should own the means of production, thus avoiding this issue.

Turns out, Marx wasn't much of an economist. You look at any industry, and with few exceptions they all survive on the tiniest of profit margins. You eke out a percent here, a percent there, and do it enough and you end up with a giant pile of money. And what's the biggest expense eating away at your revenue stream? Payroll. So it seems to me that the workers are getting the vast majority of the benefits and the owners are getting very little.

And we've seen what happens when workers' unions get too much power.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

My view of socialism is that there are certain markets that will not provide the most efficient outcome to society under private ownership. Three great examples are highways, education, and law enforcement.

While any of these three would likely be more efficient at providing services to those who can afford them under private ownership, overall society loses as poor people have lost opportunity due to higher transit costs they can't afford, people are less educated, and unable to get justice.

Thus the govt. feels it is justified to step in and correct these issues in a way that is less efficient then the market, but overall better for the welfare of the country. You can argue about ho they do this on things like vouchers, but it still doesn't change the basic fact that society is made better off as a whole, including the wealthy, by Taking the wealthier peoples money and using it to intervene in the free market to correct these failures.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a large socially-conscious government doesn't make you socialist. Visit an ex-communist country some time and you'll see the difference.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[mikael_j]

You should keep in mind that Orwell wasn't exactly right-wing, what he had issues with was totalitarianism and dictatorship (regardless of what they may be teaching schoolchildren in some countries (I had a teacher who told me Orwell was anti-communist and that 1984 was his way of supporting free-market capitalism, do I have to mention that the teacher in question was in favor of Sweden joining NATO?).

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well it's awfully damn convienient that whenever someone starts a socialist or communist government, they always happen to end up a dictator."

Sorry what? What the fuck kind of level of ignorance exists on Slashdot for this to get modded up? This is perhaps the most wrong post I have ever seen modded up on Slashdot. It's the type of ignornce that could only come from listening to the likes of Fox news or other US Republican anti-Democrat propaganda outlets.

Most of Europe is run by socialist governments, not one of them is a dictatorship, and not one of them ever will be.

Your comment is equivalent to saying "Well it's awfully damn convienient that whenever someone starts a CAPITALIST government, they always happen to end up a dictator." and then using Iran and Saudia Arabia as examples and citing it as proof of your point. Clearly this is absurd, it's absurd as your comment. The fact is you simply cannot link the form of leadership to the political system as they are entirely interchangable.

The reason some communist/socialist nations have turned into dictatorships is merely the fact that these nations have been historically influenced by the USSR because the West has neglected them, and hence they have tended more to former soviet policies. As pointed out above however, this exact same thing can happen with countries influenced by the West sometimes- again, Saudi Arabia, and Iran's political systems stem from historically being linked to the West, yet their leaderships are clearly not democracies.

Please, if you really believe anything you said, do not join in any discussion about politics ever again, because you absolutely have no clue whatsoever about the subject. The fact you put socialism and communism in the same basket is evidence enough of the fact you don't know what you're on about, they're two very different systems, in fact, communism is s close to socialism as fascism is to capitalism, yet obviously I assume you'd also find it odd if someone started suggesting fascists and capitalists are all the same right?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Xest]

"Chavez has supporters right in the Obama administration. One is Obamas' "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd at the FCC. Talk about a scary scenario, having a guy like Lloyd in a position of power over the nations' communications!"

Jesus man, that's some scary shit. Imagine if something like that was the case under the Republic administration? like if Bush had links to Osama Bin Laden or something like that?

No, seriously, the reality is you can find people willing to make all sorts of links of varying degrees, there are plenty of conspiracy theories out there putting Bush administration down as the people behind 9/11. Do you believe them? if so then you're really a lost cause, if not, then the fact you believe this instead when it's equally insane shows you're so lost in your bias and hate presumably of the Democrats and Obama that you've lost all ability to be rational and objective.

Either way, your thinking is entirely irrational, you need to really start striving to be a little more objective and better at stepping back from your viewpoint and looking at alternate possible explanations, else you'll just remain one of those wing nuts than most the world points and laughs about because they can't believe anyone would be so ignorant. That's really not a good thing to be.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[eh2o]

Term limits have been widely criticized by political scholars since they require us to regularly fire our most qualified employees for no reason other than X years have passed. No private company would ever adopt such an absurd policy, its a a sure way to create incompetence and mayhem. Much more tragically, this high rate of turnover increases the cost of campaigning greatly and in turn, this magnifies the influence of money in politics.

Its true that sham-democracies don't have term limits for obvious reasons, but to think that the converse is true is a basic logical fallacy. The sham is in the elections, not the term limits.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[svirre]

Fortunately Scandinavian countries aren't socialist.
Socialist parties make up 4-8% of the voting public. (They still manage to make a mess whenever they get a sliver of power though)
Scandinavian economies are generally quite liberal and are in some cases more deregulated than in the US (Real estate is one example).

We do have an enormous welfare burden though built by well meaning but ultimately dumb politicians that will likely force a major reorganization of society in the next 30 years. Even though through the oil windfall Norway own something like 1% of the world stock markets it is not enough to pay for the committed welfare burdens above and beyond what the productive part of society can bring for the large part of the population born after WW2 that now is going into retirement.

The other Scandinavian countries have already started reforming their societies since they do not have oil.

So while the socialists make some politics here, society as a whole is not socialist.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Have you read the G. Orwell's "Animal Farm" ? Shows nicely how this happened.

Have you read his "The Road To Wigan Pier" ? It shows quite nicely why socialism was needed in the first place (too bad it got co-opted by tyrants in so many places.)

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

"Only a totalitarian state can force productive people to be slaves to non-productive people."

You mean like how in the US things such as the military, police, and health care insurance for government employees is payed for by tax money? Or is it not socialism when the US does it?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Or another one from my country:

The Seven Wonders of Socialism

1. Everybody is employed.

2. Although everybody is employed, nobody works

3. Although nobody works, everybody fulfills the plan.

4. Although everybody fulfills the plan, there are no goods.

5. Although there are no goods, everybody has everything.

6. Although everybody has everything, everybody steals.

7. Although everybody steals, nothing is ever missing.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[CharlyFoxtrot]

ok, if you're keeping to the literal meaning of communism, then probably no state has even implemented it.
On the other hand if you read Marx, you may find that besides describing ideal 'utopia' society, he also gave hints on the how leaders may rule masses, which had nothing to do with "communism, as advertised" :-)

Marx != communism, Marx = Marxism. There are other forms of communism, like the anarchist communism of Kropotkin and the failure of Marxist authoritarian states was predicted by other socialists like Bakunin. It bugs me when people reduce the whole universe of thought that is socialism to the small minded authoritarianism of Stalinist Marxism.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously not talking about the US then. Lower literacy rates than Cuba, better healthcare... you're obviously joking, and generally happier people?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Vintermann]

No! You see, the US is a republic, not a democracy. That means the republicans are good, and the democrats are bad!

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ScentCone]

I think many people confuse people's desire for opportunities with a desire for a free ride.

And I think that many people consider an education, the services of doctors, housing, transportation, food, and other creature comforts paid for by somebody else to be a vey nice opportunity indeed.

Immigrants by the millions flocked to the US because it was a land of opportunity. A place to set up shop and work. It, like Western Europe, is now becoming instead a land of entitlement. At least as long as money can be borrowed from China or extracted from the people who produce more goods and services than they consume in government programs.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ScentCone]

Wow, you must live in a place where there is equality of opportunity!

You are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of results. Not everyone has the good fortune to be raised by parents with a work ethic, for example. The same opportunities put in front of one person (raised with an entitlement mindset) will not result in the same outcome as those opportunities placed in front of a person raised to understand that opportunity, itself, gets you nothing.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[mwlewis]

So your theory is that the US government giving incentives for companies to make loans and sell them off didn't contribute to problems? Especially when combined with the actions of the Fed. If your argument is that Fannie and Freddie weren't the sole cause, then I'm with you.

I don't know enough about Canadian law to comment on Canadian banks, but the meme that US banks were thoroughly deregulated is...delusional. In any case, as the GP pointed out, it was the US, through regulators and others (yes, including Fannie and Freddie!), that was encouraging the risky behavior of the banks.

Booms and busts are basically a natural thing in biology and economics. But that doesn't mean we need governments providing perverse incentives to make them worse.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ScentCone]

You mean like how in the US things such as the military, police, and health care insurance for government employees is payed for by tax money? Or is it not socialism when the US does it?

No, not like that at all, actually. The police and military are employed by taxpayers. They work for us. They are offered health care services as part of some of their employment contracts as a way to make those otherwise low-paying jobs more attractive.

As you obviously know, but would rather not talk about, the reference is to the taxpayer's money being simply handed over to some other person for their own personal comfort and well being. The structural creation of a system where that is a permanent fact. Entitlements. Received by some simply because they are breathing, and always paid for by others.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Vintermann]

- redistribution of wealth by the government so as to create a more egalitarian society

Is quite compatible with personal freedom, except possibly the freedom to spend ALL your money precisely the way you want. That "freedom" is already taken away by taxation, laws against bribery, criminal penalties for neglecting to support your children, and a whole lot of other obvious things.

- collective (i.e. state) ownership of the means of production and distribution
OK, try this: Imagine that a legitimate, non-criminal corporate conglomerate was so successful and rich that it managed to take over all significant means of production and distribution. If state ownership infringes on your personal freedom, how come such corporate ownership would not?

Both things are a bad idea for other reasons, but I can't see that personal freedom has all that much to do with it.

- central planning of the economic activity
See previous question. If all economic activity was decided from a single corporate boardroom, this would be just as bad as government production quotas. This would be bad indeed, but again, "personal freedom of the individual" has little to do with it. Whether I get my production quota from a corporate boss or a government planner makes little immediate difference for me.

Central planning is also a bad idea for other reasons, but the "individual freedom" mantra doesn't cut it.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Vintermann]

Why does Sweden has such a stable homogenous society? Because there is very little inequality. Why is there little inequality? because they spend a whole lot of effort (and money) keeping it that way, that's why. But sure, immigrants will bring it all down. Never mind that "Libertarians" have predicted the imminent doom of the Swedish model for fifty years.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[sjames]

Willingly in the sense that it beats poverty, and yes, they are free to work for any non-productive sloth they choose. There are a number to choose from.

Start with the fake communism of the old Soviet state. Split it up into multiple communist parties, all sharing power and all driven by the same ideology. Now you have the U.S.

If you don't believe that, then how do you explain that the establishment felt deeply threatened by a bunch of hippies?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

the percentage of people living poverty in Venezeula had more than doubled to two-thirds of the population over the two decades prior to his election

And it's more or less the same, eleven years later. The "social programmes" are mostly setting up a subsidized (but poorly-stocked) network of grocery shops, and a parallel health system (instead of fixing the one in place), partly staffed with imported medical personnel from Cuba (which are sadly ill-trained), paid in oil and good-old-USD. How far can that go without jobs ?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[sjames]

It could also be that anyone hungry for power needs to pretend to stand for what the people want long enough to get that power. Once they consolidate, they can drop the pretense.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Vintermann]

Labour call themselves a socialist party. They are currently (in Norway) in a government coalition with the Socialist Left, which according to your numbers must be the "socialists". The Socialist Left even have the minister of finance, and even the wealth pundits have had to admit that it has not been the end of the world.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Vintermann]

That presupposes that a politician is merely someone who does a job for you, where qualifications is what matters. However, we often call politicians representatives, and if you've been in office too long, maybe you aren't as representative (as in "representative sample") as you were.

It's not just how well you do it, it's what you do. I'm not saying term limits is always a good idea, but there is a reason for it.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, longer life, better education, better healthcare, generally happier people.

One could almost say the same thing about animals in a zoo...

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Kreigaffe]

[quote]OK, try this: Imagine that a legitimate, non-criminal corporate conglomerate was so successful and rich that it managed to take over all significant means of production and distribution. If state ownership infringes on your personal freedom, how come such corporate ownership would not?[/quote]

First of all, we do break up monopolies.

That's irrelevant.

If a company is that large, competition may be difficult to mount against them -- and, of course, they may be participating in anticompetitive practices, which would be illegal. Still, assuming the monopoly-holding company does not behave in an outright *illegal* manner, and that it is possible to compete with them in any way, competition would, we would hope, arise.

If the state is the company, the only way to get a competing company into the picture is to get rid of the government, or convince them to make a massive shift and close the company outright (with nothing left in place in the private sector to fill the void). You can't have two governments in competition. You can't compete with a government company.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Rising Ape]

Marx was wrong about a lot - particularly when it came to his proposed solutions, but it's foolish to ignore history and proclaim that laissez-faire capitalism is the one true fair and just system. Its alleged fairness only works if you assume transactions take place in a vacuum and where everyone has a similar level of bargaining power.

The statement of "productive people working for the non-productive people" is still more true for capitalism, given that the really wealthy get most of their wealth from investment, not labour (their money works, so they don't have to). Of course, I'm more concerned with what works well in practice, so I'm not a socialist.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Hatta]

I don't think it's quite fair to refer to the US as totalitarianism yet.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Hatta]

Anyone who voices dissent with Obama administration policies on radio/TV and even on the internet should be prepared. There will be a campaign launched to demonize you, painting you as "dangerous" and "promoting violence" and attempting to smear you by conflating voicing your dissent with a few nutjobs (which exist on both sides) who may commit some violent act

Wow, that sound *exactly* like what happened under Bush if you voiced opposition to the War on Terror.

"You're either with us or against us"
-GWB

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a huge difference between a democratically elected leader and a democratic leader. Where the former was simply elected during democratic elections and the latter acts according to principles considered as related to democracy - such as fairness and equality, protection of human rights and citizens rights as perceived by a modern liberal society.

If you consider the Colombian elections being democratic, than you must consider also Hitler being a democraticaly elected leader, than in 1933, the situation in Germany was probably more stable than in Colombia (which is by all means tragic). It is not at all clear under which circumstances should an election be declared undemocratic, since no clear lines exist in politics.

As far as acting democratically is concerned, let me get back to your post and though many will probably prefer to shut their eyes before facing their own recent past, let's evaluate:

"A pompous but legitimate ruler" needs these quest items to become "a dictator in all but name":

"taking over the media"
Well it is true, that the U.S. media were not formally taken over between 2002-2006, it is more like they surrendered and started behaving like Saruman's Orks instead of professional journalists. However the point can be made that by a mix of political doctrine and pressure from media corporations (and their owners), an environment was created in the U.S. where free and impartial mainstream media ceased to exist.

"possibly attempting to assassinate the democratically elected president" if you strip the "democratically elected" president out of the equation (since Colombian democracy is highly questionable, given that the current right wing regime was only able to remain in power due to continous military and financial support by the U.S. over the past decades) then it boils down to "possibly attempting to assassinate the democratically elected president"
Let's see... Which president was recently assasinated. (Hint: He had an awsome beard)

than we have "allegations of vote fraud"
Which reminds me kinda of Al Gore and how he became a victim of such a fraud.

To sum it up, there are many other leaders that commited the same (and worse) acts as Chavez and no one bothered to stop them.
Democracy is a luxury. I am not judging President Bush, nor Chavez for not being democratical because Democracy is not a rule designed to withstand a major crisis and if you read the history of political and social developments in Latin and South America over the past decades, it makes it apparent that they are stuck in a state of crisis, which we sometimes tend to forget.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[jahudabudy]

Turns out, Marx wasn't much of an economist. You look at any industry, and with few exceptions they all survive on the tiniest of profit margins.

And you apparently aren't much of a historian. Look at the state of capitalism at the time in which Marx existed, and you'll find that most industry did not have tiny margins, payroll was not their largest concern, and unionizing was the only way workers could do things like force companies not to work them to an early death, poorer than when they started. There is a reason the early, successful capitalists were known as Robber Barons.

I'm not saying Marx had the answers, but the problems he saw were very real flaws in the capitalist system.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Hatta]

Entitlements. Received by some simply because they are breathing, and always paid for by others.

Which is worse, people who have contributed nothing to society receiving small amounts of money to keep them alive, or people who have nearly destroyed the economy of our country receiving millions of dollars for their efforts?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[jahudabudy]

What if you cut down your neighbor's trees, and hired mercenaries to make sure he doesn't squawk too loudly about it? That is also "unrestricted capitalism". What if instead of hiring workers at a "fair wage", you own their houses and threaten to evict them if they don't come work for you at a subsistence level? That is also "unrestricted capitalism". Do you find these historically accurate examples to acceptable situations? Portraying real world capitalism as identical to it's theoretic ideal is no more useful than portraying socialism as identical to it's theoretic ideal. In reality, both systems have flaws that require patching outside their default states. Capitalism just has either A) flaws that are more easily patched or B) flaws that take longer to crash the system. Only time will really tell which case is true.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Imsdal]

Most people vote what benefit themselves the most

Not true. See, for instance Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter". Most people in fact vote altruistically.

and since the poor and sick who need financial help is a minority the system is gradually changing to "take from the poor, give to the rich".

No, it is gradually changing to "take slightly less from the rich, give slightly less the the poor". It's not like low income earners are net payers of tax in the Nordic countries. Not by a long shot.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[svirre]

"The Socialist Left even have the minister of finance"
Not anymore they haven't. After the last election the socialist left had to make do with education.

As far as labor goes, they may use the word socialist here and there, but mostly that stems from the post war years when they did have socialist sympathies.

After they lost power to the conservatives in the 80'ies because people were tired from the constant shortages in public services back then (It took 3-9 months to get a phone installed, hosing shortages were critical) they reformed themselves and became proponents for a capitalist economy. (The current labor prime minister led some of the largest privatizations of publicly held corporations in 2000-2001: Statoil and Telenor)

They still persist in buying popularity through expensive welfare reforms and they still can't stand up to the labor unions, so they will not be able to reform norway's economy into something that can survive when the oil runs out.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Imsdal]

Meanwhile, if we look at how many people voluntarily move from the Scandinavian countries to the US, and how many people move in the other direction, a slightly different pattern emerges. Why do you think that is?

I'll actually spell it out for you. The standard of living in the US is ridiculously much higher, on average, than it is in Scandinavia, assuming we meassure what people actually buy for themselves, with their own money. Note that Scandinavian countries rank highly in HDI beacue that meassures stuff that the government buys.

If some random academic study tells you that people are happier in place A than in place B, yet more people want to move from A to B than the other way around, don't you think that should tell you something about the study?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[that this is not und]

Kind of funny-sad how going to google for this background info

Yes. I agree. It's kind of funny-sad how Lloyd's comments are essentially ignored in the Mainstream Media, and that only the blogosphere does any analysis of them.

Now if 'they' can just get those pesky blogs to shut up, things will improve. Where's a Dan Rather when you need one?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[that this is not und]

'The One' is the phrase often used to refer to the dude who's in the White House right now.

I'm afraid he doesn't need dope to be any more loopy and out of control.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[that this is not und]

America was slipping down the hole into the Compost Tank before 1951. People figured out what FDR was all about (yes, he fucked up the US bad during his terms) and didn't want it to happen again. The US wasn't a terrible dictatorship, but it wasn't become of Rooseveldt not trying. The dude was saved by WWII happening to occur on his watch. Otherwise he would have continued to drag the US economy down a shithole which his socialist policies and probably been out in two terms or less.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ScentCone]

Which is worse, people who have contributed nothing to society receiving small amounts of money to keep them alive, or people who have nearly destroyed the economy of our country receiving millions of dollars for their efforts?

Bad facts, and a false dichotomy.

Entitlement spending isn't a "small" amount, it's the reason for the huge debt, and Obama has just added unsustainable new mountains of debt to the pile because of it. Are people really in need of me buying them - forever - visits to the dermatologist for all of their kids in order to "stay alive?" These are structural changes, putting in place colossal new entitlements that will cripple the beasts of burden that actually pay taxes.

Do you really see no additional choices to go with reducing the Nanny State's confiscatory nature, and not having Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama handing out billions of dollars to businesses that should have failed, just to keep buying votes from organized labor? You can't separate favors done by Dems for their pet contributors (investment bankers) from the need to stop handing out cash like candy - in perpetuity - to people who don't actually do anything for it?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Hatta]

Do you really see no additional choices

There are only two kinds of government that exist anywhere in the world. Socialism that benefits the poor, and socialism that benefits the rich. If I have to choose between the two, I'll take the former.

You can't separate favors done by Dems for their pet contributors (investment bankers)

That's just intellectually dishonest. Bush and Paulson started it. Both D and R are corrupt as hell, if you can't see that you're mindlessly partisan.

the need to stop handing out cash like candy - in perpetuity - to people who don't actually do anything for it?

By which you mean middlemen like banks and insurance companies right?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[infinite9]

Not really. Only a totalitarian state can force productive people to be slaves to non-productive people. The two modes are part and parcel of the whole.

Good thing the United States isn't like that. Oh wait...

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[mooingyak]

Or that terrible dictatorship, the US before 1951?

The US had implied term limits for presidents for more or less its entire existence. It was only when FDR ran for 4 terms that anyone felt a need to explicitly codify it.

Term limits are a means to prevent people in power from becoming entrenched. It's also handy in forcing a dictator to show their stripes -- elections can be faked to show whatever results you want, but you have to be a little bit more obvious about it if the law of the land claims that you're ineligible to even run for office.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[NeutronCowboy]

That, unfortunately, should be modded all the way to the top. This is exactly what is happening. The only place that you find this argument is among right-wing republicans who are very good at using terminology to elicit an emotional response.

Even the Federalist papers, where all this bullshit is supposedly coming from, explicitly disagrees with the democracy != republic statement.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ScentCone]

By which you mean middlemen like banks and insurance companies right?

No, actually. Banks and insurance companies play a vital role in any modern economy. I couldn't earn my living if I couldn't make use of banking services and couldn't manage risk through the purchase of insurance.

Are you more in the mood for bartering of chickens for IT services, and milling your own grain? Don't like the idea of paying a few bucks a month for liability insurance so that you can't be sued into oblivion if something accidental happens on your watch? If you really think that banks and insurance companies "do nothing," don't lecture me about intellectual dishonesty.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Hatta]

Sure, there are a few things you can point to that banks and insurance companies do that are worth while. But, you know Al-Qaeda provides some social services. That doesn't mean they're not evil. When banks are making billions off of 'securitization' and insurance companies are paying people to find reasons to deny coverage (which stops people from, you know, actually doing work) I think it's fair to characterize them as leeches.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[joshuapurcell]

What you have stated is basically at the heart of anti-immigration arguments, racism, and they type of blind anti-social individualism that is found among many on the right in the US. People who recognize opportunities and work to take advantage of those opportunities are fine so long as they were part of the group the antagonist happens to be apart of, but as soon as any other people from foreign places try to do the same thing the antagonist attempts to close the same door they had just come in through themselves. We need to have a much longer view of history than what is currently being prescribed.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[ebuck]

Have you ever wondered if it is not the political system that's being applied, but the skill of the practitioners who are responsible for the success and failure of the political system?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. I agree. It's kind of funny-sad how Lloyd's comments are essentially ignored in the Mainstream Media, and that only the blogosphere does any analysis of them.

You agree huh? Apparently you don't understand what an echo-chamber is. Hint - no analysis involved.

Oh wait, you don't agree? You thought you were being clever? No surprise that such a failure to pull off a simplistic turn of phrase passes for clever among the lemmings.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[oldperson]

"It "works" in Sweden with a horrendous tax load on the working people of Sweden."

um, the "horrendous tax load" in Sweden includes their entire health care cost. If you add US health care costs (currently 15% of GDP) in to make a realistic comparison, the US has a higher load than Sweden.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Anonymous Coward]

ScentCone wrote:

Entitlement spending isn't a "small" amount, it's the reason for the huge debt, and Obama has just added unsustainable new mountains of debt to the pile because of it

Obviously it depends on how you define "entitlement". After all, why should I pay for the roads you use? I don't need to drive to your house. In fact, at the moment I work from home and do very little driving, so why should I pay for roads you probably use every day and I use once a week? You just have a selfish feeling of entitlement to roads. Obviously that's a ridiculous argument. Especially since I used to commute three hours a day, so I used the roads quite a bit (on the other hand, that was mostly the Mass Pike, the tolls on which mostly go to pay for the Big Dig, which I make use of maybe once or twice a year).

One of the ridiculous things about that argument (quite aside from it ignoring the big picture about how the infrastructure of roads benefits me even if I never drive on them) is that I was whining about my situation _now_, which is what most people who whine about "entitlement" programs are whining about. "I don't want to pay for welfare mothers who keep popping out children," they say, "I don't need welfare." When these same people actually do _need_ welfare, let's say because they get pregnant and can't work or have a child, but can't afford childcare, or have a child in that situation, they seldom refuse it, usually using the argument that "I paid for it at gunpoint, so I might as well use it."

It's the same situation with health care (which is what's currently bringing these anti-"entitlement" sentiments out of the woodwork), currently healthy people who can support their own care right now can go around shouting about how it's "stealing" from them, but will they shout so loudly when it's them in desperate need of care and not able to afford it and the rest of us pick up the tab. Don't forget, we all die, and many of us go out costing quite a lot in medical expenses at the end. A good number of us also get sick at some point in our lives, but survive thanks to expensive medical care and go on to continue to be productive members of society. Sure, you might go through your whole life healthy and finally drop dead without ever really needing serious medial care, but that would statistically put you in a pretty small percentage of the population, and there's no good way to tell you're in that percentage of the population until you're finally dead. The reality of a universal health care situation is that you would have an average case for cost of healthcare and *gasp*, half of all people would be getting less out of the system than they were paying in! Of course the other half of all people would be getting more out of the system than they're paying in. Chances are therefore only 50% that you personally would be one of the ones paying more. If you have only one loved one, chances are only 25% that you and your loved ones are paying more and so on as you add loved ones. So, unless you're some sort of misanthrope, whoever your "Us" is, who you fear will be robbed by the evil "Them", the odds that they're paying more as a group become vanishingly small.

All that said, I think the current healthcare bill sucks due to its fascist approach of requiring us all to get private health insurance or be fined, rather than creating true universal healthcare available to all taxpayers (technically meaning all citizens and legal immigrants even if they're not currently paying taxes, as well as *gasp* illegal immigrants, as long as they _are_ paying taxes or are the dependents of a taxpayer). What we need is not profit seeking middlemen, but a public risk pool and collective bargainer for health with a straightforward mandate to pay for any necessary medical procedure, only denying claims if they're either fraud or things like purely elective cosmetic surgery. As for private medical insurance, it could continue, as it does in many countries with socialized medicine, as suppl

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[drsquare]

Always? Socialism isn't even two hundred years old, and there have hardly been any attempts at it. It took capitalism thousands of years to produce a society that wasn't a brutally oppressive serfdom.

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Hurricane78]

False dichotomy!

You know the concept of self-employment, do you? Every company started like this. And so can yours.

I chose this path, and am very, very happy with it!

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[shutdown -p now]

You know the concept of self-employment, do you?

You know the concept of "barrier to entry", do you?

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[alexo]

A Democracy is mob rule, we (in the USA) live in a representative republic, not a democracy.

And we (in Canada) live in a constitutional monarchy, so?

And guess what, both countries are democracies (representative ones).

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[toadlife]

In a socialist nation, you have no choice.

Socialism != Communism

Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez

[Kvasio]

It bugs me when people reduce the whole universe of thought that is socialism to the small minded authoritarianism of Stalinist Marxism.

Well, it was communism "flagship" after all.

Chilling thought

[shellster_dude]

It disturbs me greatly that a man like this, and Fidel Castro regularly have been praising the direction our country is heading. I hope this TV owner finds a way to get out of this.

Re:Chilling thought

[chstwnd]

you would think that would be a red flag to all the Obama/Pelosi supporters, huh?

Re:Chilling thought

[NeutronCowboy]

It disturbs me greatly that a man like this, and Fidel Castro regularly have been praising the direction our country is heading.

Yes, and when the devil says that 2+2=4, it has to be wrong. If you do the exact opposite of what certain people tell you to do, you're letting them influence you just as much as if you followed exactly what they tell you to do. The only way to deal with people like that is to ignore their populist comments.

Re:Chilling thought

[Anonymous Coward]

They do that to piss off Joe Sixpack Americans. Way to fall for it...

Re:Chilling thought

[MobyDisk]

Since this is Slashdot, I'm assuming "our country" is the United States. If not, I apologize.

The only example which I found on a Google search was one from today, when Fidel Castro praised the new US Health care plan. I hardly would call that "praising the direction our country is heading" - are there any other examples. Everything else I found was generally negative.

Re:Chilling thought

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we usually don't give much credence to people like Chavez. Maybe you should too.

Re:Chilling thought

[Anonymous Coward]

fucking idiot.

Re:Chilling thought

[Anonymous Coward]

"you would think that would be a red flag to all the Obama/Pelosi supporters, huh?"

Stopped clock, etc.

I'm more frightened when the Republicans congratulate Obama on any issue.

Re:Chilling thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Goebbels and Hitler would have approved of Fox News and the teabaggers / brownshirts. Now what, douchington?

Re:Chilling thought

[Anonymous Coward]

"The only way to deal with people like that is to ignore their POPULIST comments."

Well, given that every poll has more opposition that support for the recent Heathcare legislation, I'd have to say it wasn't populist.

Re:Chilling thought

[coaxial]

Castro is as irrelevant as ever. Seriously. If you're dusting off the boogeyman of our grandparents, you are irrelevant as well. Oh! Have we all forgotten the gulags that Social Security and Amtrak ushered in?

So what if some third world hasbeen has praised us? So has everyone else in the entire rest of the world, lest we forget.

Re:Chilling thought

[coaxial]

Well, given that every poll has more opposition that support for the recent Heathcare legislation, I'd have to say it wasn't populist.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT.

Re:Chilling thought

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, and Adolph Hitler wrote a book, therefore we should burn them all.

I mean, if Chavez (or Castro) will say that it's a good thing for America that it has a public education system, will you also disturb you?

Re:Chilling thought

[Totenglocke]

Actually months ago, Chavez was at the UN and praised Obama and his policies and made a comment to the effect of praying that the bullets aimed at Obama would miss (I don't remember his exact words). Not only that, but the policies (not 100% identical, but scarily similar) of the Obama administration match those of Chavez over the last year. There's a reason why the communist dictators all praise Obama....

Most of the people I know voted for Obama - and all but a handful of hardcore openly pro-communist ones are very regretful that they did now that they've seen the policies he wants. It's not "right wing nutjobs" who are against Obama, it's anyone who still wants to make their own decisions and reap the reward of their hard work.

Re:Chilling thought

[bigjocker]

What disturbs me is that everyone fails to mention that the TV station owner used his TV station to accuse the government of mass killings, without presenting any proof whatsoever.

I mean, he owns the TV station, and he goes outside the country to make accusations (that may be true, mind you) without presenting any proof, and then transmits those declaration nonstop on his TV station. This is not about free speech, or freedom of press. It's about making claims without any proof and then using your own TV station to repeat the message ad-nauseam.

Re:Chilling thought

[Totenglocke]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2R1ChNYjoag

How does it feel to be proven wrong?

Re:Chilling thought

[ShadowRangerRIT]

"Roughly" four in ten in favor of the legislation just passed. And six in ten in favor of the government involving itself in health care. Of course, the most useful statistics are buried near the end: "Three-fourths of respondents say the issue is so complex that it’s hard for the average American to understand the proposals that were debated. [...] Only 20 percent of those surveyed say the system is fine the way it is."

So 20% don't like it the way it is. 60% want the government to involve itself, and while only 40% approve (the article doesn't make clear how the disapprove/undecided split broke down), 75% admit they don't have a clue what was actually passed. Sure sounds like a stunning rejection of the bill. Oh wait, they don't know what they're rejecting, so the poll tells you jack shit.

Re:Chilling thought

[Pulzar]

It's pretty selfish of you to not want to share a small percentage of your large wealth (which has to be pretty large to be affected by some of these new policies) to provide basic healthcare to those that can't afford it right now. Not to mention that you'll have the benefit in the long run of living in a healthier and happier country.

Re:Chilling thought

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Which policies? The one where Obama sent soldiers to shut down Fox News? Or the one where Obama pushed through an amendment abolishing term limits? Perhaps the one where Obama nationalized the telephone, cement, electric, steel and oil industries? Enacted price controls on basic food stuffs, thereby leading to nationwide shortages? Wait, you're saying he did none of those things? Never even tried to do anything like them? Hmm... Clearly you know what you're talking about, so I'm sure I'm just missing the obviousness of your claim. Last I heard, he shepherded through an incredibly moderate set of health care reforms that Republicans had previously endorsed at various points reaching back thirty years. Continued the economic policies of his Republican predecessor to try and salvage an economy teetering on the brink. Proposed a few financial reforms that would increase marketplace transparency, allowing the free flow of information to *improve* the efficiency and safety of the market. But nevertheless, he must be a commie.

Re:Chilling thought

[Totenglocke]

Oh wait, they don't know what they're rejecting, so the poll tells you jack shit.

So it's just like how the politicians who passed this crap didn't have a clue about most of what's in it!

My question for you is, why do you support a bill that:1) will raise insurance costs 2) is unconstitutional 3) sets a precedent where the government can force you to buy a product / service 4) will harm the economy (due to all the taxes being enacted to pay for this) 5) will raise the debt (given that it's already been acknowledged that the Dems. have a bill ready to put up in April that negates the spending cuts to Medicare AND the fact that every government entitlement project has always cost several times more than was initially projected) 6) will fine people if they cannot afford to buy insurance?

That's the thing that never ceases to amaze me about the people on slashdot - they scream bloody murder if you try to tell them they can't change the OS on a device or modify source code, but tell them that they're losing their actual freedoms / rights to an increasingly controlling government and they cheer it on.

Re:Chilling thought

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty selfish of you to not want to share a small percentage of your large wealth (which has to be pretty large to be affected by some of these new policies) to provide basic healthcare to those that can't afford it right now. Not to mention that you'll have the benefit in the long run of living in a healthier and happier country.

There's nothing selfish about not wanting your property STOLEN from you. I guess you think that anyone who locks their doors, has an alarm, or keeps their money in a bank or safe is selfish too? It's not "sharing" when it's forcefully taken from you. It's also immoral to think that anyone deserves the money someone else earned. Those who can't afford health care are (theoretically) covered by Medicaid - but that's yet another failing of government, which makes it amusing that you support more government intervention when time and again they prove themselves incompetent. Even if they're not, health care is a privilege - it's a service that anyone is free to buy, but you have to have a job and earn the money to buy it. It's no different from anything else (car, home, food, computer) - you have to buy it yourself and the only person holding you back is yourself. The problem is that people like you don't want to accept that actions have consequences - people make choices (doing drugs, dropping out of school, being lazy) that cause them to be poor, then they scream and throw a fit that they're poor even though they had the entire world telling them "If you do those things, you'll never get a good job". Personal responsibility - learn some.

This bill will not make us healthier, nor will complete government control of health care. Why? Because Americans don't want to do the things to make themselves healthy - they want to sit around and be lazy, they want to eat junk food. No law will change that unless you have government supervision 24/7 to ensure people exercise the proper amount and eat the proper diet every day.

As for happier? Hardly. The rest of the world has been used to always having some sort of tyrant rule them (King, Emperor, some sort of elite all-powerful ruler), so they have no problem accepting their loss of rights because they aren't used to freedom. However, the US was founded on freedom and the people here value it, so taking away their rights and having the federal government seize even more power will NOT make most people happy.

Re:Chilling thought

[ShadowRangerRIT]

1. Most projections have it lowering the cost of insurance, though some people that don't have it will be required to buy it. Given that we were subsidizing their ER trips anyway, I'm fine with that.
2. You have no idea what is constitutional. Like it or not, the scope of the commerce clause has been expanded through judicial decisions reaching back two hundred years. We give tax deductions for donating to charity to encourage charity; think of this as a tax increase that you can easily avoid by acquiring health insurance.
3. Were they forcing you to buy a house when they enacted the mortgage interest deduction? Forced you to buy a car when they created the cash-for-clunkers program? No.
4. The taxes being enacted are the "virtual" tax I described in point 2, which can be avoided by buying health care, plus applying the Medicare tax to investment income (which is taxed at a very low rate to start with). And there is no indication that moderately higher taxes would harm the economy in any event. The top marginal rate was 90% in the Eisenhower years, and it kicked in at a comparatively moderate income. Yet the 50s were an economic boom time. I'm not saying we bring back 90% rates, but taxing the highest earners at about 42% is not going to destroy the economy.
5. There is no serious suggestion that the Medicare spending cuts will be enacted. The budget projections for the plan show a substantially reduced deficit. And this is a very limited entitlement compared to previous "entitlements", in that the government is only subsidizing at the low end, not covering the whole tab.
6. At the low end, people are covered by Medicaid. At the lower-middle to middle, people have their health care subsidized. At the upper middle, you can afford health care, and not getting it just means that if you're one of the unlucky ones, whatever part of your ER bill you can't pay was being paid by the taxpayers and/or the responsible insured people at the same hospital. And at the very top; well, I guess if you're got millions in the bank you could always found your own insurance group and self-insure. Oh, and if, for some reason, you're in the merely subsidized group and *really* can't afford health care (as opposed to *really* not wanting to give up cable), then hey, you can pay a small additional tax that is lower than the cost of the insurance.

Frankly, you clearly have no understanding of the bill. The only legitimate complaint you have is that it does cost some people some money they might not have wanted to spend, but given that some of those same people would have ended up in an ER and paid the bill with taxpayer and insured people's money instead of their own, I'm not inclined to be sympathetic to free riders.

Re:Chilling thought

[Totenglocke]

I forget the list but it involved nationalizing some industries (GM, Chrysler) - check, nationalizing some banks - check, defame anyone who disagreed with him - check, and I forget the rest of the list (there were around 8 things).

Continued the economic policies of his Republican predecessor to try and salvage an economy teetering on the brink.

Nothing Obama has done has helped the economy one bit - in fact, many of his polices have harmed the economy. The fact that Obama constantly talks about raising more and more taxes shows his complete incompetence when it comes to economics (I have a degree in Economics, so I actually do know what I'm talking about).

As for your sarcastic "he must be a commie" comment, Obama has openly stated many times that he believes you should be punished for being successful, that he's against free markets, that he's for government control of all sorts of industries, that he believes industries / companies are the enemy, among other marxist comments. For fucks sake, in one of his books he openly states that he intentionally surrounded himself with as many hard-core marxists as he could! Just look as the people he appoints to offices, many of whom openly promote communism and are quoted as saying things such as "capitalism is dead" or the one Democrat who openly said that Obamacare would "control the people". Just because you bury your head in the sand and pretend that bad things don't exist doesn't make them vanish, it just makes you foolish.

Re:Chilling thought

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Personally, I would have let the auto guys fail, but hey, there is something to be said for maintaining some native manufacturing capability. Helped a lot in World War II. Several of the banks he salvaged are already paying back the money and being "denationalized", and in most cases, while the government had an ownership stake, it exercised no actual control over the banks. The taxes Obama has talked about raising are on those at a relatively high income; there is no clear evidence one way or the other for the effect of high marginal tax rates at the top of the spectrum, and anecdotal historical evidence shows that many of our periods of strongest economic growth coincided with local maxima in the tax rates. Not to be snide, but I've seen how little you need to get a degree in Economics, so forgive me if I ignore your appeal to expertise.

As for your final paragraph, that's one big [citation needed] right there. Most of those look like extremely loose paraphrases. On his behavior in his youth, I'm not inclined to give him too much crap; I went to college, and while I personally did virtually nothing that I'd be embarrassed to read about on the front page, I also saw enough to know that holding that against someone 20 years down the line is petty. BTW, "one Democrat" saying anything isn't all that persuasive unless they actually have a substantial amount of power. The Dems have nuts too, doesn't mean anyone listens to them.

Re:Chilling thought

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't here when the Patriot Act was being passed were you?

Re:Chilling thought

[Prien715]

There's a reason why the communist dictators all praise Obama....
Chavez is crazy and makes irrational choices? I can go the other way with this too. If even a totalitarian dictator thinks you're a repressive douche bag, who the hell are your supporters?

It makes as much sense as not listening to [band you like] because [band you hate] likes them.

Re:Chilling thought

[whoop]

But, it's free health care. Woohoo! Rock on! 30 million people are covered for only a trillion or two dollars. Come on, it's not like it's 10 trillion. It's ONLY a couple! Best of all, we get to stick it to those rich bastards who buy fancy-shmancy health insurance. Take that suckas! You want to get rich on my hard work for your company, you've got another thing coming.

I especially like how they have "fees" to pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, etc. Them bastards have been stealing from people who need their drugs/machines for years. There is no excuse for it. Now we'll cut out their profits and show them who's boss. Yeah!!

[sarcasm for those Slashdotters without any]
I find it odd that the main punchline of all this need for reform is revenge against some other groups of people. Vote for me and I'll screw over this guy, but not you! Can't we all just get along?

Re:Chilling thought

[Totenglocke]

Wow, after reading that, I know why it was modded offtopic - I don't think I've ever seen someone so clueless before.

1) The fact that the bill makes it so no one can be denied for being too expensive to insure means that the people who were previously denied for being too expensive will not have those insane costs paid for by all of us - that means that insurance rates will increase.

2) This has nothing to do with interstate commerce, even in the absolute loosest definition of the term. The federal government has no authority at all to force you to buy anything. I know you don't want to be reminded of it, but that pesky 10th amendment specifically states that all powers not specifically given to the federal government and not specifically forbidden to the states belongs with the states. A STATE could pass such a law, but the federal government cannot.

3) I guess you missed the part where the law says you must buy insurance or be fined - that's forcing you to buy something. Your "examples" were cases where they said they would GIVE you money if you bought one of those and there was nothing in there requiring anyone to buy anything - completely different. The fact that you fail to grasp the difference makes me very worried.

4) No, the taxes are things such as a 10% tax on using a tanning bed (which due to the low profit margins of most tanning beds, it's expected to cause 9,000 people to lose their jobs due to budget cuts / bankruptcy), taxes on insurance companies (part of it will be passed on to consumers - again, higher rates!, and the rest will be covered by cutting employees - yet more jobs lost by Obama's lack of economic knowledge). There are also taxes on people who make more than Obama thinks they should, which since they're not pegged for inflation means that over time, just like the AMT, they'll be forced on more and more citizens. The last thing you do during a recession is increase taxes - of any kind. If Obama had ever taken an economics class, he'd know this.

5) The budget projections show a reduced deficit for two reasons - 1) they ignore that there is a bill to repeal the Medicare cuts, thus jumping the cost several hundred billion and 2) they are planning on collecting taxes for 3-4 years before this goes into effect, thus completely skewing the 10-year budget. If they looked at the budget from 2014 - 2024, it would be a different story because the taxes would be in effect as would the expenditures.

6) Your rambling seems to be that everyone can afford / is already provided health insurance - if that's true, then why the need for this bill at all? Regardless, it's still in the bill that if you can't afford insurance, you will be fined.

Frankly, not only do you not understand the bill, you do not understand economics, or even how to read and respond to a point, since many of your comments were completely irrelevant to the questions I posed - you also had severe logic gaps (such as trying to claim that a law forcing you to buy insurance is similar to giving a tax credit for buying a home).

Then you end with this:

I'm not inclined to be sympathetic to free riders.

The entire point of the Democrats push for government run health care is to increase the number of free riders! Yes, right now we have people who can get free treatment if they are dying from an injury, but the same is not true if they're dying of AIDS / cancer / any long term disease. I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

Re:Chilling thought

[Totenglocke]

Actually, I was / am against the Patriot Act too.

Re:Chilling thought

[Totenglocke]

I just looked at the sig and realized that you're the same person who made the incoherent list defending Obamacare on another comment I left, so your mental deficiencies are already noted.

As for your comment of "that's one big [citation needed] right there", it's called watch the goddamn news. There are hundreds of videos of televised interviews where Obama and his pals openly say this. For fucks sake, Al Sharpton even said on tv sunday night that "Americans voted overwhelmingly for socialism" when they voted for Obama. This isn't making things up, this isn't twisting words, this me me simply stating what the people you support have said on national tv. When Obama is appointing multiple people to high government positions who are anti-capitalist and are self proclaimed marxists, that's not "holding what he did in his youth against him", that's looking at his current actions and judging him.

Seriously, watch the news sometime, you'd be amazed at how open Obama and his cohorts are about being socialist / communist / marxist.

As for "Not to be snide, but I've seen how little you need to get a degree in Economics, so forgive me if I ignore your appeal to expertise", since you showed on your other comment that you do not understand economics in the slightest, even if I did "little to get my degree" (hardly true, especially since I went to one of the best Economics programs in the country), it was still way beyond your knowledge or ability.

Re:Chilling thought

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Yes, and when the devil says that 2+2=4, it has to be wrong.

If the devil says how much he loves Obamacare, that'd worry me.

Re:Chilling thought

[Svartalfar]

First, This will initially raise insurance costs but only insofar as the insurance companies will be upset they cannot screw over people like they used to. Also, health care as a whole will benefit due to people not going to the emergency room without insurance and receiving treatment thereby passing the cost onto everyone else like they do now. Secondly, Unconstitutional? This is one thing the commerce clause actually SHOULD cover. The health of americans drastically effects commerce. If for for no other reason then healthy people are more productive. Thirdly, The government already forces people to buy things. Wanna buy a car? Guess what you have to buy, license, plates, and *gasp* Auto insurance. Fourth, You say it will harm the economy but with insurance companies being forced to spend 85% of the premiums they get on actual healthcare, the ridiculous amount of extra money we waste on healthcare will drop dramatically. At the very least with all that money not flowing into the healthcare system it will flow elsewhere. Say maybe the economy? If I don't have to spend that extra 300 dollars on my premiums, maybe I will go buy that thing I've been wanting. Look, more purchases, more jobs! More purchases, More taxes! Five, raise the debt? you wanna fix the debt problems, fight that bill. Fight the pork they put in other bills. For the first time, the government has placed regulations on something that makes sense. it's a buisness that makes it's money based on not servicing it's customers. The less they help, the more they profit. Such a business NEEDS regulation. and sixth, The legislation and the fines on people for not buying health insurance has been watered down so much to be almost non-existant. But guess what? We should have some sort of fine. because when a person doesn't have health insurance and they go get treatment anyways, everyone else gets fined instead. We have to pay higher health care costs because they choose to keep their money or spend it on other things. It's not my fault they decided not to have insurance. and now that the insurance companies cannot deny you based on preexisting conditions, no one has any excuses now for not having some form of insurnace other than blatent poverty. And in that case they are setting up programs to help those people too. Thats the thing that never ceases to amaze me about the people who get their talking points from Fox news. They scream bloody murder if you tell them anything that Glenn Beck has told them is social-commie-marxist-facism-anti-americanism.

Re:Chilling thought

[pipingguy]

That's the thing that never ceases to amaze me about the people on slashdot - they scream bloody murder if you try to tell them they can't change the OS on a device or modify source code, but tell them that they're losing their actual freedoms / rights to an increasingly controlling government and they cheer it on.

Aren't most Slashdotters computer/software people? If so, it should come as no surprise that the real world is foreign to them.

Re:Chilling thought

[Anonymous Coward]

2 + 2 = 5

Re:Chilling thought

[Ogive17]

Same thing as Europeans giving Obama a Nobel prize for giving a few speeches. Just the outside world trying to influence US policy (something they ironically chastise the US for doing, though I can admit sometimes it is warranted).

Re:Chilling thought

[Hatta]

they scream bloody murder if you try to tell them they can't change the OS on a device or modify source code, but tell them that they're losing their actual freedoms / rights to an increasingly controlling government and they cheer it on.

You can tell us anything you want, but it doesn't make it true. Most people will be dramatically more free when they don't have to worry about health care. How free are you when you can't start your own business for fear of being unable to acquire health insurance for yourself, your family, and employees?

Re:Chilling thought

[that this is not und]

so the poll tells you jack shit.

The only poll that matters is happening in November.

And there are going to be a lot of incumbents flayed. Hopefully almost everybody up for election who voted for that fucker will be among those whose viscera is lying in the dirt.

Is that putting it simply enough?

Re:Chilling thought

[that this is not und]

Frankly, you clearly have no understanding of the bill.

Frankly, both of you are relying on your own chosen Readers Digest Condensed Versions of the bill.

The bill is chock full of fucking pork. It's amazing that anybody can praise it without it being backwards-day.

Re:Chilling thought

[that this is not und]

'The auto guys failing' would have amounted to GM and Chrysler filing for bankruptcy. That would have allowed them to shuck off the shimmering fat layers of management that need to go, and it would have allowed them to flush out the UAW parasites that are sucking them dry. They would have emerged from bankruptcy as whole and viable companies.

That's been forestalled by outright government interference in the Bankruptcy process. Bankruptcy is not an end-point. It is a corrective process.

Re:Chilling thought

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Unfortunately, all bills are chock full of pork. Doesn't matter which party is involved. Most of the really egregious bits were stripped in reconciliation, e.g. the Nebraska exemption was removed. The Louisiana payment increase was kept, but it is temporary and it appears to have been justified, as it is compensating for some kinks in the payment system triggered by the local economic collapse in the wake of Katrina (specifically, the local economic collapse made the reimbursement formulas give too little money to doctors, which was leading to doctors moving operations away from where they were still sorely needed). Yeah, it probably went a little over the top to ensure a vote from Landrieu, but like I said, a little pork is in every bill.

As long as the pork isn't outrageous (and post-reconciliation fixes, it doesn't appear to be), then you accept it as part of the process and evaluate the bill on its merits. And on its merits, it's a moderate (supported by congressional Republicans as recently as the early 90s, and very similar to the system Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts), incremental reform of the health care system. It won't solve every problem, and it still doesn't cover everyone, but it's still a big improvement on the status quo.

Re:Chilling thought

[guspasho]

Citation? I have not heard of any of this praise.

Well,

[EldestPort]

There you go, Sean Penn.

Re:Well,

[ScentCone]

There you go, Sean Penn.

You make it sound like this would be some sort of "I told you so" moment for him. It's not. People like him know exactly what guys like Chavez are all about. Penn also wants a society ruled by Smart Lefties, since he's sure that he and the others know what's best. That allows him to wash his hands of all of the corruption, back room deals, unconstitutional compulsion and skullduggery that it takes to make those arrangements. You know, kind of like we just saw happen in the US congress over the weekend.

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

There you go, Sean Penn.

You make it sound like this would be some sort of "I told you so" moment for him. It's not. People like him know exactly what guys like Chavez are all about.

When it comes to things other than acting and getting in a chick's pants, guys like Sean Penn Know exactly two things.

1) Jack.
2) Shit.

First step in gaining complete control

[magus_melchior]

Control the information.

You can own the media markets outright (Italy's Berlusconi), or, as Chavez and countless others before him did, simply arrest them.

Fat lotta good the UN does on either account...

Re:First step in gaining complete control

[AlXtreme]

Fat lotta good the UN does on either account...

Why would the UN care about media control within a country?

The UN is primarily an organization for international cooperation and human rights. Only in rare cases does the UN intervene (civil war).

Re:First step in gaining complete control

[palegray.net]

The UN is primarily an organization for international cooperation and human rights.

Forcibly silencing opposition media works against international cooperation by preventing citizens from hearing about anything perceived as "negative" from other nations. As for human rights, what exactly do you consider a human right, if you don't believe that should include the right to speak your views openly without fear of imprisonment?

Re:First step in gaining complete control

[jmorris42]

> The UN is primarily an organization for international cooperation and human rights.

Common misperception. The UN is nothing more and nothing less than a Parliament of Tyrants. It was designed to be such. Think. The central organizing principle that drove the design of the UN was One Country One Vote at a time when the vast majority of nation states was (and are) unfree tyrannies. I want to hear the counter argument to the proposition that any sane person couldn't help but realize the design of the UN was to enthone Evil but with the addition of the Security Council render it largely impotent. If the UN serves a positive purpose I'd certainly like to learn of it.

Boy do I feel stupid

[Jeff-reyy]

I've been posting lots of melodramatic stuff online about Obama being a usurper and how he's going to throw conservatives in gulags, but now I see how good I've actually got it. Wow.

Re:Boy do I feel stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been posting lots of melodramatic stuff online about Obama being a usurper and how he's going to throw conservatives in gulags, but now I see how good I've actually got it. Wow.

Yeah, in Obama's gulags you'll at least get health care!

Re:Boy do I feel stupid

[Sir_Lewk]

Be easy on the US politicians. They're still learning.

Re:Boy do I feel stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

come on, GWB was a fast learner here. He was just not fast enough, but I'm sure his grandson will do it right one day (ie absolute power during his first term)

Re:Boy do I feel stupid

[h4rr4r]

GULAG is an abbreviation, like FBI. You would not say "Then the FBIs came after him." Would you?

Re:Boy do I feel stupid

[coaxial]

It's no longer an abbreviation, It's been nouned.

Re:Boy do I feel stupid

[ChunderDownunder]

It's been nouned.

'noun' is a verb now? :)

MSNBC Host: Time For "Socialism" In Talk Radio

[Anonymous Coward]

linky

Fairing everything is unnecessarily hard because the right wing still has air time. A few more major policy enactments and they'll be ready to revisit the Fairness Doctrine in the US.

Argh, you're right

[Xaedalus]

He WOULD be successful in portraying something like that as a CIA attack. However, I believe being portrayed as a cross-dressing, child-eating, donkey-fucker would cause enough cognitive dissonance amongst the people of Venezuela that they'd be able to start looking at him objectively rather than subjectively.

You're also right that the Venezuelans are the only ones that can do something about him. When half the country supports him because he champions the poor at the cost of all else (because the Venezuelan elite betrayed the trust of the people over all), then that is an internal matter.

be nice to see that image though... maybe it could become the new goatse meme

Re:Argh, you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

>You're also right that the Venezuelans are the only ones that can do something about him.

Well that's not true. They may be the only ones who SHOULD do something about him, or the only ones with a RIGHT to do something about him, but they are hardly the only ones who CAN.

Re:Argh, you're right

[iamhassi]

"You're also right that the Venezuelans are the only ones that can do something about him."

Why didn't they kill him 18 yrs ago when he tried to assassinate the president? He even said he "failed (at assassination) for now". But instead of execution, he was released two years later and made president 4 years after that?? We might as well make John Hinckley the next US President

Re:Argh, you're right

[h4rr4r]

Maybe because the president he was trying to get rid of was an even worse guy?
I think Chavez is a nutbag, but Perez was horrible. Shit that guy used their military on protesters after he sold out to the IMF.

Re:Argh, you're right

[jonfr]

This dictator should not be allowed to exist. People of Venezuela should block him right away. His grab of power has been slow, but it has happened anyway.

Venezuela has lost its democracy and that can only end badly. I guess we are going to see some wars in South America soon.

Re:Argh, you're right

[McGiraf]

You are surely not an American, writing so much nonsense.

Re:Argh, you're right

[OrwellianLurker]

He's right. America could easily invade and overthrow him. Obviously we have no right to do so, and we should not, but we CAN. YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CA-

Damn catchy chant.

Re:Argh, you're right

[hitmark]

the only diff between this and the rest of the world, is that here the emperor is walking around naked.

the rest of us may vote, but the real power is in the corporations and the nameless suits that stay in office even when the leadership is replaced. This largely thanks to information now being so specialized, its becomes the equivalent of the priest reciting latin in front of the illiterate masses, unless one dedicates ones life to a specific field of study. And if doing that, what time do one have for politics?

Re:Argh, you're right

[joshuapurcell]

s/Venezula/United States/g

You sir, have brought a slim amount of reason to this obscene thread. Thanks.

Re:Argh, you're right

[soundguy]

What the hell is "venezula" ? Is that some kind of magical regex code?

Re:Argh, you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not a word about assassination in the article you linked.

Re:Argh, you're right

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

I think the correct way to state facts would be he used military on Chavez ... judging by what happened since, he should have hit a LOT harder on the bastard.

Re:Argh, you're right

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Ah the moral equivalence ... what a beautiful argument. Especially since it can be used to justify ... anything.

I could kill your family, rape your kids, and this defence would STILL apply to that act. After all, I'm only doing the same as you're doing in the company you work for.

Re:Argh, you're right

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Why didn't they kill him 18 yrs ago when he tried to assassinate the president? He even said he "failed (at assassination) for now". But instead of execution, he was released two years later and made president 4 years after that?? We might as well make John Hinckley the next US President

Article doesn't say anything about an assassination, just a coup. It also says the president was impeached a year later which might give a clue as to why they wouldn't have been sad to see him go. Anyway isn't regime change through military action acceptable in US doctrine these days ?

Re:Argh, you're right

[rtb61]

Lets start with a slightly more accurate link to the story http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100326/media_nm/us_venezuela_detention_3;_ylt=AukeOQVHjzcSw_2rM1SJtXf9SpZ4, briefly detained not locked up indefinitely. I really have to wonder about "pro-opposition TV station" now what exactly does that mean, I know in most of the modern western world where democracy and free speech are respected, you have 'independent' news services that report the news, not opposition TV stations or opposition news shows.

From what I have come to understand a politically biased TV or cable station stinks to high heaven of corruption, whether it be in Italy, the United States or perhaps even in Venezuela.

The whole Venezuelan political scene has that taint of corruption on one side US corporations with those Venezuelans who gained wealth and powers during colonisation days and on the other those who can trust and believe that only they have the answers and the masses who have yet to understand democracy.

A political system that still has a long way to go mature into a modern egalitarian society. One that will benefit form being left alone and not put under more pressure. Should Venezuela destabilise it will likely ignite the whole region with no winners just tens of millions of losers. Keep in mind the country that is receiving the most US aid in South America is also doing by far the worst. Ending the drug war will likely do more to stabilise South America than anything else possible.

Re:Argh, you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's much worse. It's a magical google spoonerism code. It comes from the phrase "venereal godzilla" being spoonerized to "venezilla godreal." Googling for "godreal" produces "Did you mean: god real" with first hit "Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There ...", and googling for "venezilla" produces "Did you mean: Venezuela" with first hit "Venezuela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopiedia".
Putting these together, you get "Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There ... Venezuela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopiedia". It is a statement of hope being posed to venezuelans by google to remind them that is freedom of information in other parts of the world, and it is because God gives us a fundamental sense of morality of which Chavez has never heard nor that has materialized on a piece of a bread in the shape of the Virgin. The second message of hope is the reminder that we do not have to kill Godzilla (Chavez) and risk being executed for assassination charges, but rather slyly offer him women with horrible venereal diseases to accelerate his natural death. Venereal diseases are a gift sent by God to be used as a weapon against cruel leaders; it is the work of Satan when they become widespread by the suppression of the free exchange of information---exactly what Godzilla is doing here.

(Sorry, the joke was so obvious I couldn't resist)

Re:Argh, you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I believe being portrayed as a cross-dressing, child-eating, donkey-fucker would cause enough cognitive dissonance amongst the people of Venezuela that they'd be able to start looking at him objectively rather than subjectively.

In which universe do people behave like that? His opponents already hate him and his supporters would merely be angered by an insult like that.

The only people who would actually be amused by a stunt like that are pimply 14-year-old westerners.

Re:Argh, you're right

[iamhassi]

"I think Chavez is a nutbag, but Perez was horrible."

Couldn't have been that bad, he didn't even execute the person who tried to assassinate him

Re:Argh, you're right

[alantus]

The name "Venezuela" comes from the spanish discoverers, who saw the small natives' houses built on the water and were reminded of Venice, hence they called it "little venice" or "Venezuela". In spanish the "uela" prefix is used to minimize something, like "mujer" (lady) and "mujerzuela" (whore).

On the other hand, what does "United States of America" mean? America is a continent, but there are other independent states in America that are not part of this union, so in my opinion it should be called "United States of New England" or something like that.
The official name of Mexico is "Estados Unidos de Mexico", which means "United States of Mexico", in my opinion much better than claiming the whole continent's name to themselves.

Re:Argh, you're right

[inthealpine]

All this comment says is it's okay to stop free speech out as long as you can label it as something other than 'free speech'. Also, since other countries are worse off it's fine to continue on the path of a full dictatorship. Oh, and anything that is wrong with the situation in the first place the US is to blame for since we don't let them freely import cocaine to our streets.

Re:Argh, you're right

[daem0n1x]

This dictator should not be allowed to exist.

Guess what? The people keep voting for him, in free and fair elections according to international observers. This makes him a very original dictator.

Re:Argh, you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

[blockquote]Shit that guy used their military on protesters [/blockquote]
Sounds like a great idea to me. If I am ever elected President, that will be my policy for dealing with protests. Now, if the protests turn into riots, they will be required to respond with real bullets instead of the rubber ones used to disperse regular protesters.

Re:Argh, you're right

[canadian_right]

So you are saying Fox news should be shut down because they "oppose" Obama?

There is nothing wrong with pro or anti governemnt media outlets. There is only a problem when the government uses its power to silence the opposition.

Re:Argh, you're right

[guspasho]

We tried that on Chavez once already, but it didn't work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_attempt

Re:Argh, you're right

[daem0n1x]

Modded "Troll" for saying the truth. And then you call the other guy dictator!

Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[vandan]

These TV station smart-asses have been openly advocating for Chavez to be assassinated. I'm sure if some 'independent' TV station started calling for President Obama's assassination, there would be some arrests over that too.

The problem is that Chavez is trying to implement some real social reforms, but the capitalists would very much prefer that not to happen. One of their weapons in the battle is these 'independent' TV stations, that are about as independent as Fox News.

Good riddance I say. There are enough far-right freak-shows with access to mass media already. Time to claw things back and give Chavez a chance to reform the country, like a majority of the population say they want.

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[Lunatrik]

Citation needed, really. I WANT to believe you and find this hard to stomach!

If anyone has a cite for this it would be appreciated.

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[khallow]

Look if Chavez can jail opponents arbitrarily, then they should be able to kill Chavez any time they feel like it. That's only fair when law means only what the strong want it to mean.

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh yes, media reform as part of social reforms. Can't have that ugly capitalist controlled media getting in your way.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/24/steve-forbes-venezuela-hugo-chavez-media-robert-mcchesney-free-press/

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a loon. Do you have any idea what is going on in Venezuela? Do you?! You are blind if you think what Chavez is doing at any level is "good".

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[Eponymous Bastard]

Actually, the venezuelan government has been trying to close Globovision for a while now, and one of the biggest problems is that they have NEVER advocated any kind of violence against the government, be it the president or anyone else. It would cost too much international support for them to close another oposition TV station without a good reason.

The other two big independent TV stations have been scared off enough that they don't dare play anything political. The only other one is VTV, the government's channel (and I don't mean Bush' Fox, I mean wholly owned by the government). They do play show like "La Hojilla" (The razor blade) that openly advocated a few times killing oposition as a legitimate means of defending "the revolution".

Not to mention Chavez himself sometimes applauding relatively violent acts in his defense.

Now, I won't say that Globovision is fair and balanced, but as far as I can tell they never outright lied about anything. I understand Fox news to be more radical and distorting than Globovision and yet I don't see the Fox owners being hounded for years and finally arrested like Zuloaga.

FWIW, it seems Zuloaga was released after appearing in court, with a prohibition against leaving the country. We'll see whether he'll fold and close Globovision or be thrown in jail on trumped up charges.

Time to claw things back and give Chavez a chance to reform the country, like a majority of the population say they want.

Disclaimer on my stance on the government: Chavez has been in power for 10 years. He's changed the constitution multiple times, tried out different reforms all while oil was at an all time high and money was flowing into the country like crazy. He's had a BIG chance to reform the country and It's all been a failure. Lately all he's doing helps the government more than the people.

Hell, we even have rolling blackouts now, when we used to export electricity. This is a situation that was predicted over a year ago, but 10 years of ignoring the power infrastructure have left its mark, and yet he blames it all on el niño and the previous governments.

If you want change, don't prop up the same old government. If you're a socialist, elect a different socialist president. If you're a capitalist, same thing. There's no reason to maintain Chavez in power for another 50 years.

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[h4rr4r]

You mean like gitmo?

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[h4rr4r]

he other two big independent TV stations have been scared off enough that they don't dare play anything political. The only other one is VTV, the government's channel (and I don't mean Bush' Fox, I mean wholly owned by the government). They do play show like "La Hojilla" (The razor blade) that openly advocated a few times killing oposition as a legitimate means of defending "the revolution".

We had that too, it was called 24.

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[Eponymous Bastard]

Sorry, I didn't mean a TV Show like a sitcom or whatever. La Hojilla was a news/opinion show with a guy discussing the day's events, and so on.

It never pretended to be fiction, or fiction pretending to be reality, or anything like that.

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[zippthorne]

I take it you haven't either...

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The best thing Chavez could do to defend this 'revolution' is to have the people elect his successor; but Putins Russia doesn't think it is worth the risk either.

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[h4rr4r]

Sorry my mistake.

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[Attila Dimedici]

These TV station smart-asses have been openly advocating for Chavez to be assassinated. I'm sure if some 'independent' TV station started calling for President Obama's assassination, there would be some arrests over that too.

The problem is that Chavez is trying to implement some real social reforms, but the capitalists would very much prefer that not to happen. One of their weapons in the battle is these 'independent' TV stations, that are about as independent as Fox News.

Good riddance I say. There are enough far-right freak-shows with access to mass media already. Time to claw things back and give Chavez a chance to reform the country, like a majority of the population say they want.

You mean the way that the people who called for George W. Bush's assassination were arrested? Oh that's right, they weren't. Of course that was different because Bush was a bad guy.
You appear to be saying that it is ok for Chavez to arrest these guys because you don't like what they were saying.

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[Attila Dimedici]

No, he means like the health care takeover the Democrats just passed.

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[Scrameustache]

If you want change, don't prop up the same old government. If you're a socialist, elect a different socialist president. If you're a capitalist, same thing. There's no reason to maintain Chavez in power for another 50 years.

Is there another socialist that could beat Chavez in a popularity contest...er... election? And what if they pull a Putin and the new president names the last president to some other high office but he doesn't actually change chairs or move his office or anything?

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[Eponymous Bastard]

Nope. One of his moves a few years ago was to set up the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) which absorbed a bunch of parties that supported him at one time and he's campaigned for people to see this as the only socialist party in existence. Of course he controls it and it would only propose him for president. Anyone leading another party is politically a nobody

There are other socialist politicians. Real socialists, even some that have been fighting for change for decades and are appalled at what Chavez is doing now. One of them said lately that Chavez is not a socialist but a communist, for example. There are, of course, people who were with Chavez but have fallen out of favor and might want to set themselves up as new socialists leaders, but without the PSUV's backing they are not getting anywhere.

So, no.

A lot of people love their dear leader and his personality more than the ideology. And a lot of people like socialism, but believe socialism is whatever Chavez says, or that letting the opposition get any foothold will make them lose "all they've fought for". Others think Chavez simply can do no wrong, whatever he does. All of them still insist on calling a 10 year old entrenched government "the revolution" and anyone who doesn't like whatever Chavez says is "against the process" (and some of them say it with a "they deserve death" attitude)

Bringing up that they could back another better socialist is a good way to make them face the fact that they love him more than the process or the ideology.

As to the Putin scenario, he's not going to do that. Why would he back a constitutional reform whose only point was to allow him to run again in the next presidential elections?

He also managed to get the last opposition guy to run against him to flee the country, so there's no credible person to run against him from the opposition anyway. But that's a story for another post.

Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad

[Civil_Disobedient]

Wikipedia good enough?

This article is about as double-think as you can get. The TV station owners actively supported the coup to overthrow Chávez. They interrupted their regular programming before the coup and replaced it with broadcasts calling for his (illegal) removal from office.

If FOX news spent all day calling for the violent overthrow of President Obama, you think they'd still be on the air?

Since when..?

[dragisha]

..is TV considered "online"?

Is it really something for "Your Rights Online" or just simple /.'s HR activism? Some kind of tax incentive like when movie displays US flag? :)

Re:Since when..?

[Incubusxp]

The guy was actually arrested for being part of the group that attempted the coup against him, and for talking publicy about killing the president, so there you go. If in the US some mentions something like that on TV, you bet your ass the FBI would visit the guy and make him dissappear. So, c'mon there are actually a lot more reasons to take the guy to jail. Oh and you're right, what does this have in relation with the "internet censorship", well nothing. And there is no censorship of the internet in Venezuela, i know i live in Venezuela.

Re:Since when..?

[Culture20]

Is it really something for "Your Rights Online" or just simple /.'s HR activism? Some kind of tax incentive like when movie displays US flag? :)

Assuming that "yro" is only about rights on/of the internet, there's still a chilling effect here: Now that Chavez has total control of Boardwalk and Park Place, don't you think he's going to try to own the whole side of the game board? Venezuela internet isn't going to be free (as in speech, or as a bird) for long.

Re:Since when..?

[danlip]

If in the US some mentions something like that on TV, you bet your ass the FBI would visit the guy and make him dissappear.

The FBI would probably arrest someone in that situation, but they wouldn't make them "disappear". FBI arrest are public knowledge and the people arrested get a trial.

Now the CIA is another matter. But they mostly harass people outside the US.

Re:Since when..?

[Incubusxp]

Ok, my bad.. maybe not disappear.. but at least they put him on list of somekind, you know like they have a list of every arabic person that lives inside the US. Of course they have their reasons to do so. My point is, not all you see on the news abroad about venezuela is true. There is no dictatorship, a lot of american people have come here and done documentaries that shows the truth about Presindent Chavez Goverment.. Look for them.

Put down your bong....

[Anonymous Coward]

So where does eliminating term limits so he will be in power forever fit into those "real social reforms"? I think you should move there to help him out.

Re:Put down your bong....

[Anonymous Coward]

You meant to say, putting term limits up to a referendum vote, and then gracefully backing down and acknowledging it when the vote failed, right?

Zealots

[Anonymous Coward]

Venezuela would be a paradise for fucking socialist linux zealots. Long live for this troll...!!!

The place of the media in modern societies

[goruka]

The place of the media, in modern societies, hasn't been resolved yet. Mass media in this day and age has so much reach that it can cause a revolt or, at much, change the outcome of any democratic election. This is dangerous for any government, and specially for governments of developing nations, whose mass media can be easily owned by foreign capitals/countries with an eye for the local resources.
Venezuela is definitely a nation like that, and after he nationalized oil (which was pretty much being looted for pennies by foreign companies), mass media and even factions of the military launched an all out offensive against the government.
What we are seeing is pretty much that Chavez has fed up with mass media controlled by foreign interests and decided to close it down, given it was dangerous for his government. Did he have an alternative?
Bottom line is that:
1) Freedom of press is dangerous for any country in the development world, given how easy it can serve foreign interests from developed countries
2) Government intervention of the media is seen as something wrong and antidemocratic, going against free speech (even though it's only the speech of those who own the media).
So, in the best scenario, governments just negotiate favorable deals with the media, in the worst case the media can destroy a government.
In the end, the mass media itself just becomes a tool used by large economic groups to threaten governments.

Re:The place of the media in modern societies

[danlip]

Freedom of press is dangerous for any country in the development world, given how easy it can serve foreign interests from developed countries

Not as dangerous as a lack of freedom of the press. The things you say have a certain degree of truth, but when freedom of the press goes away things always go to hell (if they haven't already).

Re:The place of the media in modern societies

[dragisha]

And there are free-media-zealots - enforcement branch of freedom! Their intention is noble, but usually blinded. Maybe most of them are such - others are just paid for it.

Probably every single country in the world has some kind of "secret deal" policy on it's media. It's pretty obvious who pays whom, and it's only readiness to accept such kind of embarassment and pressure weighted against harm these media make which decides government action.

For anyone seeing through it's lot of fun seeing energy spent defending media mercenaries - richly paid for what they did - poor souls who find themselves on the wrong side of scales from previous paragraph.

I have to wonder

[Shivetya]

if we delude ourselves in thinking the other side of the iron curtain is any better.

Re:I have to wonder

[Kvasio]

if we delude ourselves in thinking the other side of the iron curtain is any better.

to the bitter surprise of the inhabitants of the Central Europe - it isn't (if the politicians "fair play" is regarded).
However, at least life is more colorful after the change, and one can freely travel without passport not only to another town, but also within EU(Schengen) borders :-) One could even move to any other place in the world without begging the passport office to issue document for you.

Thanks to the US Supreme Court...

[Required Snark]

Thanks to to recent US Supreme Court ruling removing limits on corporate spending on politics, Hugo Chavez could easily funnel funds into the US to influence the political process. The same goes for China or Saudi Arabia or Libya or ???

It follows the classic Slashdot 3 Step Plan:

1. Acquire US corporation with overseas branches (Bahamas, anyone).

2. Transfer funds to US, make contributions, buy political advertising, etc.

3. Profit! In this case profit equals changing US behavior.

This is such a new ruling that the practical limits have not been tested in court. Even so, current law makes it difficult to find out who is really behind much existing political funding. And if you are willing to lie, it is even easier.

And if you don't think that money buys political influence, just look at the record breaking spending in the California governs race: http://www.kcbs.com/localnews/Spending-Soars-in-CA-Governor-s-Race/6639828

The movement is reshaping the way elections are waged in trendsetting California while offering a glimpse into America's future after the U.S. Supreme Court in January gave corporations and unions new freedom to spend on many campaigns.

...

And in recent years, California has seen a surge in spending by Indian tribes, companies and labor groups trying to elect friendly candidates to the Legislature, sometimes in amounts that dwarf spending by candidate campaigns.

"Campaigns, particularly for governor and U.S. Senate, are not going to get waged between candidate A and candidate B," said Bill Carrick, a Los Angeles-based Democratic consultant with decades of experience in state and national politics.

"There will be all these satellite, independent campaigns that might have a more profound effect on the campaign than the candidates."

This is bad enough already. Imagine how i will be with foreign interests footing the bills...

holier than thou are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think there are real freedom of speech in the west, then you are sadly mistaken.

Chavez and oBama

[Anonymous Coward]

I promise you, oBama and Chavez are more alike than most now know! Whether you agree or not, remember this statement! I also predicted in 1978 that GM would go bankrupt. I even wrote the president of GM thirty years ago and told him that I would see GM bankrupt in my life time. Then thirty years later (last year), I wrote the current president of GM and said, I told you so! lol I only tell you this so that you won't completely discard my statement about oBama and Chavez.

Screaming Recal Cancer

[elkto]

Screaming Rectal Cancer, Screaming Rectal Cancer for all of you....humph...

bzzt

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be helpful to know that although those tv stations were directly linked to the 2002 coup Chavez had not gone after them at the time.

I would also like to inform me about another dictator that has gained 70% of the votes at the elections that the US said that were 100% legitimate,or another dictator that has eliminated iliteracy in his country, that has brought cheap sate food shops to the starving from free market people thus eliminating hunger, and has provided the poorest with free quality healthcare.

in before all the ethnic chauvinists

[circletimessquare]

and tribal chest thumpers:

yes, the usa horribly manipulated regimes in central and south america for decades, in the cold war and in the colonial era before

having said that, that doesn't mean you have to reflexively defend a gasbag like chavez

or, when chavez does something heinous like this, that you have to wag your finger and say "yeah but the usa..."

yeah but the usa what? chavez is an asshole. this fact exists independently of anything the usa ever did or is doing

look: hating the usa does not automatically make you a defender of a petrol funded cult of personality, or at least it shouldn't

conversely, hating chavez does not automatically make you an american imperialist. so if someone criticizes chavez, that opinion might actually be issued by someone who is not a neoimperialist american scumbag. imagine fucking that! so if you hear criticism of chavez, and you go "typical american..." THEN YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE PROBLEM. what if a brazilian said the same words? are they any more valid or invalid criticisms of chavez?

can some of you please drop the fucking false dichotomies? if chavez acts like an asshole, THE USA IS COMPLETELY BESIDES THE FUCKING POINT

the world isn't binary, its actually quite nuanced, and its actually possible for you to criticize the venezuela AND the usa, at the same time, for different and/ or related reasons. i promise: no cognitive dissonance will result

real life is NOT partisanship, real life is not a soccer game/ futbol game. or at least it shouldn't be, although it often is, falsely and derivatively, amongst the hopelessly propagandized and/ or low iq

Re:in before all the ethnic chauvinists

[Anonymous Coward]

chavez is an asshole. this fact exists independently of anything the usa ever did or is doing

The way he talks about the opposition media and the USA is independent of what they have done, like advocating his overthrow and even murder, and supporting the coup attempt of 2002? Interesting philosophy you have there.

look: hating the usa does not automatically make you a defender of a petrol funded cult of personality

Have you ever considered that his media-created super villain image like straight out of a Bond movie is because of the petrol?

Re:in before all the ethnic chauvinists

[professionalfurryele]

The last CIA inspired coup in Venezuela was less than 10 years ago. Chavez is a douche bag but if you want people to stop saying "yeah but the usa..." the the USA is going to need to keep the hell out of the internal affairs of other countries. Heck Chavez has been looking for an excuse to close these guys down for years now in part because of the complicity of the media in the attempted coup against him. The CIA handed Chavez an excuse to restrict media freedom on a platter.

It's 2001 again

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember YRO stories about Afghanistan were intensifying before 9/11. I wonder what will be the event that precludes US attack on Venezuela, given that we are being brainwashed to accept it.

The Next Step

[MarkvW]

Talking smack about the USA is only going to get him so far as the standard of living declines. Then he's got to attack his neighbors (even more). That's if he lives . . .

Re:The Next Step

[Dunbal]

Talking smack about the USA is only going to get him so far as the standard of living declines.

      That won't happen until the oil runs out since he pretty much nationalized all the oil fields. And Venezuela still has oil for the rest of his lifetime at least. So he's going to keep barking like a little Chihuahua. One could argue that he's at least spending part of the revenue on the population through social programs. However he's not addressing the question of what is Venezuela going to do AFTER the oil? What happens when all that income dries up? All the rich or smart people have already left Venezuela. No large corporation is willing to invest a dime there for fear of being nationalized. So without oil, Venezuela turns to mush. Even better - with an oil embargo, Chavez and his false economy are immediately destroyed.

      But the world is too desperate for oil to ever impose an embargo. So we're stuck with him for a long, long time.

Re:The Next Step

[Intrinsic]

My answer to you is, who cares? there are plenty of people left in the country smart enough not to accept a pro-american imperialistic government. When people live in a cooperative society lots of things can happen, and im sure they will be just fine because the country is in the hands of its people, and not in the hands of a select few that have no interest addressing the needs of the majority.

Re:The Next Step

[Dunbal]

and im sure they will be just fine because the country is in the hands of its people

Er no, the country is in the hands of Hugo Chavez, not "the people". Power corrupts. Right now there is crap going on that we will only find out about when Chavez is gone. It's always the same, be it Hitler, Stalin, Stroessner, Pinochet, Castro, Somoza, Marcos, Duvalier... how many more examples do you need?

smart enough not to accept a pro-american imperialistic government.

Why is it "either" "or"? How come the only two options you put on the table are "american"-style government (which I agree is far from perfect), or dictatorship? Look around you - there is a whole range of differing government types that aren't American and aren't dictatorships either. Look at Russia for crying out loud. China. Japan. Germany. All of these countries are economic successes, and yet they are not dictatorships.

Re:The Next Step

[MarkvW]

I strongly agree with you to the extent that we should stay out of Venezuela's business. When he attacks his neighbors, then there will be plenty of license to invade and destroy him.

I hope you are right about the "cooperative society." I suspect that Chavez is just another dictator, though.

Re:The Next Step

[Intrinsic]

Er no, the country is in the hands of Hugo Chavez, not "the people". Power corrupts. Right now there is crap going on that we will only find out about when Chavez is gone. It's always the same, be it Hitler, Stalin, Stroessner, Pinochet, Castro, Somoza, Marcos, Duvalier... how many more examples do you need?

Obviousley you have been paying attention to what is going on. Have you seen http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&hl=en&emb=1"THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED" Its clear that Hugo Chavez works for the people and not against the people. The special interest who control the media (which is pretty much all of it) try to paint the president as a dictator but its a blatent lie. 80% of the population support him for the simple reason is that he works for the people and not against them. the wealthy class can fuck off, they have been raping the country for years.

Why is it "either" "or"? How come the only two options you put on the table are "american"-style government (which I agree is far from perfect), or dictatorship? Look around you - there is a whole range of differing government types that aren't American and aren't dictatorships either. Look at Russia for crying out loud. China. Japan. Germany. All of these countries are economic successes, and yet they are not dictatorships.

economic success has nothing to do with freedom. In America we have allot of financial success but the reality is we live in a dictatorship. Its dictated by special interests solely for financial gain. Our country is run but the select few and the system benefits them not the other 95% of the population, just look around you? you see it everywhere from health-care to the financial crisis.

Re:The Next Step

[Dunbal]

No I haven't seen a "program", I just live in a neighboring country and have talked to the people leaving the country.

MODS

[TapeCutter]

I neither agree nor disagree with the parent post since I do not know how much or little truth it contains but there is nothing in it that deserves a flamebait mod. If anything it deserves an interesting mod since it's expressing a very different (and plausible) view to 99% of the other (plausible) posts on this story.

There are limits to free speech (eg: shouting fire in a theater, etc) and the media can and do falcilitate and incite atrocities. For example the Ranawndan genocide was largely incited and subsequently organised via radio stations.

Again, I don't know what is going on in the Venezuelan media but I don't belive it's impossible that the TV owner is a sociopath who was attempting to incite violence for personal gain. And I certainly don't think it's flamebait to air that viewpoint.

He has been released already!

[Smurf]

He has been released already! Let's hope that they don't incarcerate him again. This link is to Globovisión, the network of which Zuloaga is president:

http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=144197

Google translation

citation throws light - GP&Chavez overstating?

[Anonymous Coward]

From wikipedia

"On May 29, 2007, President Chávez claimed during a speech that Globovision had been actively encouraging civil unrest in Venezuela, as well as his assassination. His claim on the latter was based on broadcast footage of the attempted murder of Pope John Paul II (which was part of a series of pictures showing RCTV's historical news coverage) in combination with a song titled "Esto no termina aquí" ("This does not end here")."

Now Globovision is the station in question, last of the anti Chavez stations; and this doesn't sound to me to fit GP's comparison of "...if some 'independent' TV station started calling for President Obama's assassination,..." very well; 'a very subtle implication' , yes; 'calling for', no.

Can't Login dam-it.
Derf the

Get another job?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least 10% of the people can't get *any* job, much less quit and get *another* job.

UPDATE: He's out

[Espectr0]

They released him, but prohibited him from leaving the country. Source (Spanish)

Re:UPDATE: He's out

[dskzero]

I can comfirm that.

Do alot of people have satellite tv from out side?

[Joe The Dragon]

Do alot of people have satellite tv from out side vneeuela?

Because what he did is legal in the USA?

[bigjocker]

If you have the balls to make wild claims, you better have a pair to prove them.

You have the freedom to accuse the government of killing people, but you have the duty to present the proof. Nowhere in the world (including the USA) you can accuse anybody of mass killing people without presenting any proof and come out clean. And when the accuser is the owner of a major TV channel it's worse.

Next, we'll see slashdot out-crying the incarceration of killers because they voted against Chavez.

Re:Because what he did is legal in the USA?

[jmorris42]

> Nowhere in the world (including the USA) you can accuse anybody of mass killing people without presenting any proof and come out clean.

Unless you a member of the US House that is. Congressman Murtha went to Hell never repenting his accusations of exactly that against the US Marine Corps even after they were proven false in court.

I will mostly pass on the ravings on MSNBC since you did add the qualifier of "major TV channel" and they don't meet that standard. :)

Imagine Rush Limbaugh multiplied by 1000x

[composer777]

To get an idea of what Chavez has to deal with, imagine if the nutcases running the tea party were in charge, and that Fox News was every station. Imagine Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh multipied by about 100x. Imagine that they not only advocated overthrowing the government, but actually put those words into action in an unsuccessful coup attempt. They cooperated with the military and helped promote the transition to a new government before Chavez's followers put him back into office. In the US, they wouldn't be alive after something like that. It would be called treason and they would be hung. We would hang them, and then we would go on to talk about how repressive other societies are. In Venezuela, the wealthy have so much power that he had little choice but to let them continue for another 8 years until their licenses ran out. To describe the situation as a power hungry dictator ruling with an iron fist is just bonkers.

Re:Imagine Rush Limbaugh multiplied by 1000x

[Fantastic Lad]

Agreed.

It must have taken an act of heroic patience to not arrest these villains years ago.

If it were me, I'd have done something a lot earlier on. There are so many arguments. Broadcasters shouldn't be allowed to make it their primary mission to libel people. Criticism is necessary, but it takes an honest journalist and an impartial media to do that correctly. But it's another thing entirely to deliberately manufacture hate-speech in an effort to de-stabilize a nation at the beset of American corporate/CIA wishes.

Those idiots should be arrested for Treason.

Watch "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" to get an inside look at the last coup attempt in Venezuela. -A team of documentary makers while filming in the capitol were in the middle of shooting a different story when the presidential estate was seized by the dark side, and they kept on filming. The result is an astonishing documentary which shows the whole amazing ordeal. You get to see exactly what sort of nasty characters were pulling the strings. Among the many jaw-dropping parts was hearing those corporate political monkeys mouthing about freedom while striking down Chavez' education and property ownership reforms. Encouraging a population to read and inform themselves and know their rights and participate in politics? The people love him and the result is 99% literacy and high living standards. No wonder the land/oil barons hate him! No wonder the American media is trying to vilify the man.

-FL

Re:Imagine Rush Limbaugh multiplied by 1000x

[Anonymous Coward]

To get an idea of what Chavez has to deal with, imagine if the nutcases running the tea party were in charge, and that Fox News was every station. Imagine Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh multipied by about 100x. Imagine that they not only advocated overthrowing the government, but actually put those words into action in an unsuccessful coup attempt. They cooperated with the military and helped promote the transition to a new government before Chavez's followers put him back into office. In the US, they wouldn't be alive after something like that. It would be called treason and they would be hung. We would hang them, and then we would go on to talk about how repressive other societies are. In Venezuela, the wealthy have so much power that he had little choice but to let them continue for another 8 years until their licenses ran out. To describe the situation as a power hungry dictator ruling with an iron fist is just bonkers.

Sean Penn, is that you?

So..

[Anonymous Coward]

How long until we claim they have WMD's in order to justify invading them to take their oil?

What? You really think Obama is that much better than Bush?

There is one thing I want to know now:

[Opportunist]

Is it legal in Venezuela to operate a satelite dish? How hard are they to get? How much money (compared to the average income) would it cost?

That's basically what will determine whether the control of information and information distribution is the goal. It makes very little sense, when your goal is information control, to shut down local networks if it is trivial for your subjects to get information from sat channels abroad, possibly from countries that don't look favorable at yours. Reducing the amount of available TV channels usually prompts people to look for ways to get more variety, something they would probably not do if there is enough domestic entertainment available.

So what's the status of sat programming in Venezuela?

Re:pendantic

[znerk]

<pendantic>I believe the term you are looking for is constitutional republic...

And I believe the word you were reaching for is pedantic, as pendantic isn't even defined in the urban dictionary, much less any that contain factual material.

--
Using real words is a surefire way to make yourself look less like an ass.

You think like a ReThuglican Jew

[Anonymous Coward]

You think like a ReThuglican Jew

The president has a right to legal defense

[Paua Fritter]

The Venezuelan president has a right a legal defense on unwarranted attacks on his reputation - if he is defamed then he can take the matter to court. This doesn't make him a dictator.

Zuloaga has a defense to the charges against him: if he can prove his statements were true, then he can get off. But if his allegations about Chavez are in fact just inflammatory lies, then he's in some serious legal shit.

Re:The president has a right to legal defense

[R2.0]

"The Venezuelan president has a right a legal defense on unwarranted attacks on his reputation - if he is defamed then he can take the matter to court. This doesn't make him a dictator.

Zuloaga has a defense to the charges against him: if he can prove his statements were true, then he can get off. But if his allegations about Chavez are in fact just inflammatory lies, then he's in some serious legal shit."

Problem is, "defamation" is a civil claim, not a criminal one. And one does not get arrested for civil claims.

Oh, wait - in Venezuela it IS a criminal charge? My, how....convenient.

Re:The president has a right to legal defense

[Mithrandir86]

I'm ignorant of the "legal" system in Venezuela (quotes are used since I'm skeptical of the rule of law in that country), but is the burden of proof on the accused in this case?

Re:The president has a right to legal defense

[Paua Fritter]

Yes, how convenient for the Venezuelans that their country was colonised by the Spanish rather than the English. Your point?

Re:The president has a right to legal defense

[Paua Fritter]

The prosecution has to show that Z's statements were defamation, but even if they do, Z has a defense if he can show that the statements are true - at least that's my understanding, IANAL.

disapointed with slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I never expected this. I thought slashdot was full of smart people. Apparently it's stuffed with zombies without a sense of critical thinking.

You guys just read something "Venezuela's Last Opposition TV Owner Arrested" and eat it up wiht your eyes closed. South america has been generally under the control of the CIA, chavez is trying to set venezuela free from that tragic condition. Clearly there is a lot of people that don't want to give their priviledges away without a fight, so they come up with misinformation campaigns like this one. Tv in venezuela was basically a disgusting lobby that served a group of small rich people. They clearly used it to try to foul people.
That's the tip of the iceberg, if you want to know what really happens in there, go and dig deep into a proper amount of information... Now, making endless discussions based on manipulaed headlines... I am sorry, you might be better off going and watch alice in wonderland.

Lastly, I care zero about how seriously you take this message, but in my opinion, these discussions are ridiculously pretentious.

El pequeño Hugo Chávez

[l00sr]

Or, someone could hire this midget to imitate him, and post it all over the intertubes. Let's see Chávez portray /that/ as a CIA attack!

Yo soy el pequeño Hugo Chávez. Me encanta el socialismo!

Yup, it's legal

[l00sr]

Yes, it's completely legal in the US. For better or worse, the media can legally lie.

Moreover, Americans have a great history of accusing presidents of mass murder with no factual basis whatsoever, yet I've never heard of any one of them being arrested for speaking their views.

Re:Yup, it's legal

[Roxton]

Moreover, Americans have a great history of accusing presidents of mass murder with no factual basis whatsoever, yet I've never heard of any one of them being arrested for speaking their views.

Then again, we don't have a history of media misrepresentation resulting in the toppling of the US Government. Not yet, anyways. (Although we might have if John Adams hadn't gotten the Alien and Sedition Acts passed.) With all the vitriol and disinformation flying around these days, I get a bit nervous.

What has Slashdot to do with this?

[Artemis3]

First, WTH is this doing in /. ? The OWNER of a tv STATION gets arrested boarding his plane when trying to leave the country, when a court summoned him to back up his criminal claims against the president (He said Chavez ordered the killing of protesters), all of this in a foreign country. And it somehow becomes... YOUR rights ONLINE? What has someone from /. anything to do with this? Do we all cry if the owner of Fox News (Rupert Murdoch) gets sued by Democrats for libel? How is this relevant to /. ???

70% of the comments are bullshit. Most comments have an obvious anti-Chavez bias, completely full of lies. Anyone can visit the country and immediately discover the truth. This is psycho-warfare. Believe all my lies of this country, "but don't go there!, it's dangerous!, just trust everything i say"...

Say, does /. reports when a community station gets closed? By reading these comments, one would think there is no "dissident" opinion allowed in Venezuela. I dare you come here and not find anti-chavez opinion in the media, 95% of it in private hands, 80% against Chavez. Yet, Chavez keep winning elections, because the people want him despite what media corporate lords want.

There is even someone asking if its possible for people to own a satellite dish... Are you on drugs? Subscription TV has higher penetration than Internet here, above 25% (lame, i know). You can watch all the "fine" examples of American TV, including Fox News, CNN, ABC, and the rest of your "unbiased" news corporations. We don't have a Great Firewall, and we don't censor news or opinion, but people is accountable of what they say. Even that other channel which supposedly was closed, is not, they just lost the license for public broadcast, but are doing just fine in cable and satellite, 24h attacking the government.

This guy Zuloaga, who owns another channel, will likely lose his license in a few years. That doesn't mean much as it only covers 3 cities using public airwaves. Most of its target audience are wealthy people with subscription based tv in their home who won't miss a thing. There are still many other TV stations, almost all radio and a majority of newspapers and magazines all against the government, yet the people won't budge.

Their biggest mistake is believing their own lies, thinking everyone hates Chavez just like they do, then banging their heads against the wall everytime they keep losing elections, trying to find excuses even if the whole world comes to watch the process or 100% of the voting machines get audited right after the election closes. So they resort to the conclusion the majority is stupid for choosing Chavez and they, the "well prepared and educated", need to seize power by any means, just like Honduras and oppress anyone else.

Democracy, or the power of majority over minority, is an obstacle for the opposition, who was used to rule the country to their whim for decades, and who conveniently forget it was their failure which caused Chavez to rise in the first place. Socialism? Communism? There isn't anything of the sort in Venezuela. There is a declared INTENTION towards Socialism, but thats about it. We can't even claim a mixed-economy, as the majority of production is still in private hands, but at least it's not 100% private anymore and a decade of neo-liberalism is being reverted slowly.

Of course media corporate lords don't like these community radio/tv things, but they won't tell you that. When they were in power, such thing was "pirate" and heavily repressed. How dare the poor organize and enter their turf they spent so many years to monopolize? But of course you don't hear that, its all Chavez this, Chavez, that. Keep living in dreams, the people are awake.

Re:What has Slashdot to do with this?

[ShakaUVM]

Well played, sir!

You have acted the part of a lunatic Chavez supporter with convincing emphasis and vigor!

I tip my top hat to you.

Re:What has Slashdot to do with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey jackass, way to respect the non-native speakers.

I'd like to see you try posting 8 paragraphs on a Spanish website. How about barrapunto.com?

Re:What has Slashdot to do with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on - the first sensible comment on this thread.

You absolutely cannot trust US / Western media sources reporting to be objective on Venezuela / Chavez as there is a concerted campaign to destroy the reputation of a Latin American leader that does not put US interests before the interests of his own people.

[The revolution will not be televised: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144#%5D

Re:What has Slashdot to do with this?

[ShakaUVM]

Not mocking his English, but the content.

His English is excellent, certainly better than the foreign languages I speak, cultural illiterate that I am.

Re:What has Slashdot to do with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from Venezuela and I have to say you don't know what you are talking about. Crime is rampant, there are electricity problems across the country, food is scarce.

It is very convenient to say there is democracy in Venezuela when you live in the US. Maybe you and Sean Penn should spent more quality time in 'Petare' or '23 de Enero' (some of the most dangerous 'barrios' in Caracas'.

Re:What has Slashdot to do with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother-in-law's wife had to return to Venezuela to renew her visa after being away for several years. She says it has gone way downhill and that Chavez is driving the train. She wanted it to be better than the reports in the U.S. but after being there for months it is very clear to her. There is rationing of food in the capitol and general unease at whether or not one could be arrested just because they voted against Chavez. Not everyone is "ill-informed" here in the U.S., Artemis3.

Posting this anonymously as she still has family there and she is still in the country.

Go there, Fox News!

[Katchu]

If Fox News was worth it's salt, it would set up shop in Venezuela. First, though, they need to know that the leader is "HUGO" (not "CESAR") Chavez.

Yeah..right

[Nagilum23]

Since last week's story titled "Venezuela's Chavez To Limit Internet Freedom." was really only about taking down a single webpage that demanded Chavez to be killed for years I can only guess this guy was promoting the same or similar things on TV. I would assume the same takedown is possible in most number countries using hate speech, promotion of criminal acts or libel laws.

Re:Yeah..right

[trendzetter]

There is little effort needed to prove the Globovision boss is a conspirator. He actively participated in the 2004 coup and his own declarations suggest he would not hesitate to do it again.

Re:Yeah..right

[Anonymous Coward]

• The "webpage" is actually a forum, with anonymous registration and intermittently moderated if at all. The owner posts news from main media outlets and users comment on these, much like /.
• The comments that caused the stir were false rumours stating that closest Chávez ally Diosdado Cabello had been murdered and state-paid media gadfly Mario Silva (add up Glenn Beck, Rush, Coulter, etc and multiply by ten) was shot at.
• Hugo said literally "the Internet cannot be a free thing, where anyone can say what they want". Then there was serious talk in congress (mostly Chávez yes-men), that Venezuelan webpages should be monitored and investigated

Wake up and smell the crap...

Not Obama, Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Obama, Bush. The Democrats are so limp they wouldn't bat an eyelid. But if you'd asked for Shrub's execution by headshot, you WOULD be sitting still in Cuba waiting for the next drowning.

The dictator is just the best killer amongst them

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Seems to me that a singular unelected and unaccountable head of state is a pretty desirable job, as far as benefits go. Seems to me a lot of people might be willing to kill to get it, resulting in the fact that it is very likely the person getting the job is merely the best murderer amongst the candidates. Therefore being the "champion of murderers" seems to indicate to me an embodiment of the lack of conscience you're deriding.

Yeah, better they're slaves to the rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Under capitalism the majority of people are forced into servitude, slaves to the rich and powerful. i wouldn't want to live in the Soviet Union as it was, but then again, I am not too keen living in a society which favours the rich.

We need to keep our politicians under strict control.

Viewed by a middle class kid from a wealthy nation, Chavez might not seem so wonderful but he has widespread support in his own country where, unlike most of the leaders who have come before him, he has enacted legislation to benefit ordinary people rather than rich businessmen.

I'd favour Chavez over someone like Bush any day. That's not to say I would want either of them.

Re:Thanks to the US Supreme Court...

[Elky Elk]

Its the only way you'll learn not to do it to other countries.

You are a ludicrous idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly haven't researched the bill at all. The reason people are required to buy health insurance is that healthy people are disproportionately less likely to have health insurance in the first place. Encouraging healthy people to buy insurance "evens out" the pool and lowers costs overall.

"High cost" patients are subsidized by a government pool (that's where much of the $87 billion/year price tag is expected to come from). This will also help keep costs down for insurance companies.

2) This has nothing to do with interstate commerce, even in the absolute loosest definition of the term. The federal government has no authority at all to force you to buy anything. I know you don't want to be reminded of it, but that pesky 10th amendment specifically states that all powers not specifically given to the federal government and not specifically forbidden to the states belongs with the states. A STATE could pass such a law, but the federal government cannot.

Haha, dumbass, did you know George Washington passed a law requiring every American male aged 18-45 to buy a gun and ammunition?

The Constitutional justification is that the requirement to buy health insurance is actually an income tax modification: you pay $695 if you make more than a certain amount of money in a year, and you can get that money back as a tax credit if you buy health insurance. Do you understand income taxes? The things that are explicitly allowed under the 16th Amendment of the US Constitution? (Or are you a tax protester, as well?)

The (maximum) $695 penalty is intended to help cover the government subsidies that will pay for your medical care when your presumably non-health-insurance-buying-ass finally lands in a hospital. Oh, and the penalty only applies if you make at least 133% of the federal poverty line.

No, the taxes are things such as a 10% tax on using a tanning bed (which due to the low profit margins of most tanning beds, it's expected to cause 9,000 people to lose their jobs due to budget cuts / bankruptcy), taxes on insurance companies (part of it will be passed on to consumers - again, higher rates!, and the rest will be covered by cutting employees - yet more jobs lost by Obama's lack of economic knowledge).

Oh God, the tanning bed industry!

And of course, you still don't get how average costs for insurance companies will be lowered by having more healthy people buy insurance, or by government subsidies for patients with very high medical expenses.

The last thing you do during a recession is increase taxes - of any kind. If Obama had ever taken an economics class, he'd know this.

Oh look, a bullshit political mantra repeated with absolute and undeserved certainty even in the face of all logic. I find this to be a compelling form of argument, because your stupidity is so virulent it has infected me.

The budget projections show a reduced deficit for two reasons - 1) they ignore that there is a bill to repeal the Medicare cuts, thus jumping the cost several hundred billion and 2) they are planning on collecting taxes for 3-4 years before this goes into effect, thus completely skewing the 10-year budget. If they looked at the budget from 2014 - 2024, it would be a different story because the taxes would be in effect as would the expenditures.

No, you're still an idiot. There is IMMEDIATELY a government subsidy to pay for people who have pre-existing conditions, and this provision will expire in 2014. The $695 fine on individuals doesn't kick in until 2014, when Medicare and Medicaid are expanded.

We know how many people are in the United States. We know, on average, how much it costs to provide medical care for people. Basic statistics (impossible for you but easy for an educated person) tell us the rest.

6) Your rambling seems to

Sip latte, sip latte, sip sip sip

[Hognoxious]

No no no, it's not independent. It's in the pockets of the Yankee capitalist running-dogs.

Closing it down is a last resort to prevent the brotherly people being tricked by evil globalist propaganda into turning against the glorious first citizen. It's only being done for their benefit.

Re:Sip latte, sip latte, sip sip sip

[commodore64_love]

First Citizen?

Sounds like Roman Republic circa 50 BC.

What I don't understand is why our OWN president praises Chavez as a supporter of democracy.

"Don't have a clue what you're talking about."

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

This's what the repubs are trying to save us from!

[BubbaDave]

See? See? This is what happens.
This is what the republicans and tea partiers are trying to save us from.

(Your sarcasm meter isn't pegged? Fix the damn thing!)

Dave

Allende doesn't qualify

[Quila]

He had a lot of direct Soviet help.

He also was heading towards dictatorship.

You have to do that in a communist system, because otherwise the people will rebel.

Re:Allende doesn't qualify

[shutdown -p now]

He had a lot of direct Soviet help.

Practically all countries which were in opposition to the Western bloc got Soviet help, even non-Communist ones (e.g. Arab states, India), unless they were in a "schism" (Yugoslavia). The point is that Allende wasn't beholden to Soviet leaders.

He also was heading towards dictatorship.

It's very convenient to be able to say that, I'm sure. I guess if some place is "heading towards dictatorship", that's when you take over it, institute a dictatorial regime, and throw all real and potential opposition into jail (where they're promptly stuck on the rack). Better dead then red.

At least, so far, this is how it normally went.

You have to do that in a communist system, because otherwise the people will rebel.

Only if the system was imposed on the people without their consent (e.g. via a coup, as in Russia, as opposed to democratic elections).

Re:pendantic

[Imsdal]

Surely "pendantic" is a proper word. It must mean "having the attributes of a pendant". Exactly what that does have to do with being picky about someone else's use of language is quite unclear, though, I'll give you that.

Just what democrats want to do in the socialist US

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly what the tyranical democrats and b.o. want to do in the socialist states of america! Eliminate all dissenting opinion!

It is time to take up the pitchforks, tar, feathers and rails and take them to washington and our democrat run state, city and county governments!

Time to remove the liberal dems. via a tweak of a pitchfork on the bum, tar and feather them or ride them out on a rail!!

Remove these democrats that are intent on ruining our lives and increasing their own wealth!

Teabagging nuts

[bussdriver]

1) insurance costs rise ANYWAY because they have a captive market who must pay or die and they don't care if we die because its only a minority of us who are deathly ill at a time. I know of real death panels - they are the actuaries at the insurance company. I expect the bastards to raise rates simply to retaliate but they will raise them to the extremes that the market will carry (this was already exceeded in terms of harm to the rest the US market but that is not their concern.)

2) IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. you show me where it is banned Mr. Expert 10th amendment conspiracy nut. Its NEW and quite upsetting to be forced to buy a private product; thats a given, however, the bill calls the penalty for not buying the product a TAX and therefore it's a penalty tax which is totally legit. Even then, its constitutional to make you buy stuff and put you in jail for not doing it - think of it as a FLAW or loophole in the constitution that should be plugged. (I'm for such an amendment.)

2a) Not required; but a remedy work around could be to eliminate the LAW that requires medical care in emergencies unless you buy a private product. Don't have ID? Well, then you die. Tough luck. Then this would be no different than state laws requiring purchase of private car insurance (don't have a car- then you are ok; except here the car is the hospital and you DO NEED ONE.)

2b) the constitution hasn't been followed for quite some time; its a buzz word now. bush finished it off the "quaint" thing just a while ago; remember?

3) Government loophole in constitution. Could go to extremes. All such things start out simple and wanted; think of the children!! Opposition often uses a slippery slope argument which is a fallacy BTW; one has to be made aware where it could head and put up road blocks but its illogical to oppose something on the grounds of where someone can take its logical extremes. (We can't give the Fire Marshal the power to control fire! He'll control our stoves and furnaces!! He'll control everything we can buy or build that is flammable!)

I probably lost you already before I brought up logic. oh, you should look up the history of firefighting back when it was privatized.

4) economy: you are so lost here you probably support the policies that got us into this mess. waste of time. I will say that healthcare in the USA is parasitic to the economy and shouldn't be where it is - when you nuts claim its bad to fool with 6% of the economy-- you are making the case that we NEED to mess with it!

5) Projections are just that predictions. Insurance and medical greed has grown faster than anybody predicted; and apparently higher than many thought the public would tolerate. You'd think that being the #1 cause of bankruptcies and foreclosures for a few decades would have made the point with the public. You'd think that canada's high taxes would make them more costly, but its actually cheaper to get canadian labor even when they are about even currency wise with the USA now.

6) At the last second, I heard the penalty tax "fine" could be zero in some cases. People who can't afford it will be subsidized by the people who can with taxes. This comes out cheaper because ER costs are crazy expensive - FYI: high insurance rates are a result of these ER costs. So insurance costs WILL go down as a result of this bill -- that is a FACT; however, nothing in the bill requires insurance corps to lower their rates to us. they will make huge profits as a result of this bill and continue to raise rates. Oh, BTW-- insurance works by making most people pay more to cover the people without the money; its a privatized welfare system of a sort. Few "win" and ever make out on the deal.

Why should MY insurance pay for your poor lazy ass? You should get a job and save your money for bad times! If you don't pay insurance then WHY should I pay the rates to cover you in the ER?? Now why is this so different than a government non-profit insurance? because in your mind one is good

lol

[Yaos]

Amazing how everybody critical of Chavez is a CIA spy.

Leftists!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can make Animal Farm required reading, but you can't make them think.

More Garbage About Venezuela

[neilham]

Why does Slashdot keep sending garbage about Venezuela to my inbox? The truth is, 90 percent of that country's media is privately owned and criticizes Pres. Chavez aggressively. Globovision is the worst of the lot. It actively participated in the military coup to overthrow the democratically elected government, and also supported the coup in Honduras. The owner, Zuloaga, is nothing but a little Nazi. Another article recently declared that Venezuela was engaged in a huge military buildup, despite the fact (confirmed by the CIA) that their military spending is lower than most of their neighbours! How about a story about the SEVEN military bases the American Empire is building in Columbia? Think that might constitute a threat to democracy?

Ok listen closely

[Anonymous Coward]

NO SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRY IS SOCIALIST!

Fucking asshole foreigners who don't know shit are the only ones who claim that we are, and they do so either because they think the US is some kind of gold standard on capitalism (nothing but bullshit US nationalism) or alternatively because they're dumb as fuck socialists (some inside our countries) who want to claim credit for success they and their ideology had absolutely nothing to do with.

FUCK OFF! WE DON'T NEED YOU AND WE DON'T WANT YOU, STAY AWAY!

EVERY Scandinavian and Nordic and Baltic country and throw in Russia as well ARE democratic countries with relatively free economies where private ownership exists and private entrepreneurial activity and commerce are THE NORM.

TAKING CARE OF YOUR OWN IS NOT SOCIALISM!
HAVING A WORKING SOCIETY IS NOT SOCIALISM!
HAVING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS THAT MATTER ARE NOT SOCIALISM!
EXHIBITING A HIGH LEVEL OF SOLIDARITY IS NOT SOCIALISM!

Socialism is merely the act of appropriating all the "nice and sweet" things and using them to repress the freedoms of mankind. Socialism is nothing more than pedophiles tricking children with sweets. It's exactly what US politicians do, it is exactly what EU politicians do. China and Russia are more non-socialist than either the US or the EU.

DON'T FUCKING CALL US SOCIALISTS!