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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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...
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 ?
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.