Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
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.
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...
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
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?
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.
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.
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
They do that to piss off Joe Sixpack Americans. Way to fall for it...
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
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
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.
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,
"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.
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"
if we delude ourselves in thinking the other side of the iron curtain is any better.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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.
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.
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
This is bad enough already. Imagine how i will be with foreign interests footing the bills...
Why is Snark Required?
If you think there are real freedom of speech in the west, then you are sadly mistaken.
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
A Democracy is mob rule, we (in the USA) live in a representative republic, not a democracy.
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.
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Capitalism does that too. I know plenty of execs that don't do jack.
"What was important was that the masses should believe in ideology and obey."
You mean like americans?
"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.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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.
Yeah, just look at how terrible life is in those socialist Scandinavian countries.
Yeah, look at the socialist hellholes those Scandinavian nations are. Such terrible places.
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 . . .
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.
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.
<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)
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
>...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.
Neither socialism nor communism advocate free rides for anyone
... and thus shining a light on what a house of cards it all is.
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
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Oh, so that's what a two party dictatorship is called?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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?
Yeah, longer life, better education, better healthcare, generally happier people.
Awful. I'm glad we don't have anything like that here.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
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.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
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.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
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!
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.
>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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."