check out the Chavez Crap swicki at eurekster.com

Friday, July 6, 2007

Tax Financed Terrorism

As I am preparing to debate between socialism and capitalism, the Chavez government has made one more of their interminable abuses.

for those who don't know, and how could you if no Venezuelan media can report this sort of acts, the car of Noticiero Digital's Chief Editor, Roger Santodomingo, exploded sometime this week. Even though the cause of the explosion is unclear, the threat letter received by his eight year old son (yes, an eight year old boy received a death threat in Venezuela) in which Roger was told to shut up or to be prepared to spare his son's life, kind of point towards the car not exploding by mere coincidence but somehow resembles a Mafia hit of those seen on TV, or a terrorist attacks like the ones we here happen every day in Iraq.

As is this story wasn't bad enough, we need to add the fact that our taxes and oil money, financed in a direct or indirect way this hit against a fellow Venezuelan. Thanks to the work of Mario Silva an his tv show: La hojilla (The razor blade), which fuels chavista followers with hate toward opposition figures with unfunded accusations and defamation, has been able to create this terrorist mindset on the mind of some individuals who decided Roger should be shut.

For more information on the story: http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200707060459

Again, another example of who freedom of expression works in Venezuela: You are free to think as I tell you, or else we will kill you...or threat your son.

Sunday, July 1, 2007

The new classes

I believe is human nature to divide ourselves into groups. Apart from the physical appearances, we also create groups in several different traits like education, money, religion, political views, sports teams, etc.

This separations or distinctions are generally, or shouldn't be, harmful except when taken to extremes. I mean, I love telling Magallanes followers that their team sucks as much as I like telling Caraquistas that so does theirs (I've long been a Tiburones de la Guaira fan myself even though I don't follow Venezuelan Baseball that much anymore). It's also fun during World Cups how people side to any team even though our own is not playing. They paint their faces, where their flags and chant their songs as if they truly were their team. Of course this rivalries raised from sports sometime result in violence when mixed with alcohol or simple anger.

Then we have distinctions that fall on the vault of racism: the color of our skin, our religion, our heritage, our language, our political views, our education, our social status, etc. People tend to think that we should eradicate this distinctions and although I agree that we should have the same education and the opportunity for the same social status, things like religion, color, heritage etc, can't simply be changed and should just be respected and embraced as the elements that makes us different and simply more entertaining. Wouldn't life be pretty dull if we all looked or thinked the same?

The funny thing in Venezuela is that this distinctions are slowly fading away and a new clear distinctions is arising. this has to be with color; but not with the color of our skin our eyes or hair. It simply has to do with the color that you wear. Yes, as simply as that can sound, it is the only thing that is truly differentiating one group of venezuelans with the other.

If you wear red, or as the government say, you are Rojo, rojito, you are a free person. You are a free thinker liberated from the imperialist lies bestowed on us from centuries. If you wear red you are a patriot. You have the ability to receive government grants and help for education. You gain the ability to bid on government projects, as well as you become eligible for work in government jobs. On the other hand, if you decide to wear any other color you are suddenly a traitor. An imperialist pawn controlled by the US government. You loose absolutely all possible chance of bidding on any government project, working any government job or even enjoying the so called absolute gracious programs the government has set forth to better health and education.

This governemnt has done nothing except dividing Venezuela into the new classes: The Roja, Rojita and the, well, blue, yellow, green, black, brown, pink, etc etc that simply dares to think different.

Oh my

I've failed miserably at keeping up with this blog but the truth is that the main reason I started it, the RCTV story, is not as fresh as before anymore. I mean, even though the illegal closing of the station is still causing tremor and unrest, trying to disproof the lies of the government and it's followers is not as entertaining anymore, mainly because they have absolutely no valuable argument.

They repeat as parrots the same ideas: RCTV participated on a coup and if that had happened in the US the station would be close immediately and their owners sent to a firing squad or what not and that the government was nice and didn't send the station or owners to trial but waited for their license to expire to not renew it without any due process. We must remind our readers that by law, in Venezuela, if a station meets the requirements, it's license shall be automatically renewed. We have yet to see what requirements RCTV didn't meet and of course proof of guilt in their involvement on the coup.

I plan to keep this blog alive but I'm thinking I will swift it's content to try to understand why chavistas think that socialism will make their life betters. Ok, I mean people not tied with the government cause we all know who the new Oligarchy in Venezuela is, don't we?

I am not an economist not I'm an expert on either one of these socio-political systems. But as a person who tries to rationalize things, I will do my best in pointing the flaws or goods of each one of them in hope to start a debate with socialist and capitalists alike to see if indeed, this 21st century socialist is the solution of all of the Venezuelan's problems.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

A week and no posts?

Yes, I've been busy and honestly I didn't want to write about the RCTV since it was getting pretty repetitive. Besides, Alex post below pretty much "debunks" the whole thing and sums it up pretty well.

I've been reading some news and gathering some more info and will be posting some more of my rantings pretty soon. So stay tuned.

Friday, June 15, 2007

Venezuela Analysis has some proof now?

I don't think so, or they failed to show it.

The Link: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2070

The source article was also featured on: http://redpepper.blogs.com/venezuela/2007/06/chavez_and_rctv.html & the actual source: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php

The article dwells on the same issue: Is it ok for Chavez t to close down a TV statin that is not in line with his socialist message?

I am not going to comment on all of it since I've already done enough postings on the matter. But I will comment about a couple of paragraphs that just jumped out of the page.

"Likewise, it is a simple fact, not a claim, that RCTV was deeply complicit in the 2002 military coup - and the views of the West's Venezuelan bete noire should be placed front and centre only if we are content for media demonisation to undermine this truth." I guess they have proof or maybe they recorded the trial..oh wait, there was never a trial to prove RCTV's involvement. So how come it is a simple fact and not a claim? I have yet to understand.

"In a rare example of media honesty, the Los Angeles Times reported last month that RCTV had initially been focused on providing entertainment: "But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavour: ousting a democratically elected leader from office." (Bart Jones, 'Hugo Chavez versus RCTV - Venezuela's oldest private TV network played a major role in a failed 2002 coup,' Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2007." Oh....oh...they are using Bart as their source and calling him honest. Bart, the man that wrote a book about Chavez and it's completley biased towards him, did an honest reporting, sure.

The best part of the paragraph, and maybe the whole article is the: "In a rare example of media honesty.." Media Honesty? By Bart Jones? Someone who is clearly biased for Chavez? Who is Media Lens or Red Pepper or whoever to say this is fair reporting and the other is not. People please, if you really want to defend Chavez on the grounds that RCTV allegedly participated on the coup, you still have to show proof of this participation since the Venezuelan Government, Chavez etc never showed this proof and never sent RCTV or it's owners to a trial.

Is it really "honest, fair reporting" to print things like: "On the same day, RCTV allowed leading coup plotter Carlos Ortega..." coup plotter??? I mean you can call him coup plotter if you want but you should at least be "FAIR" & "HONEST" and explain to people that he was also the head of the CTV (Confederacion de Trabajadores de Venezuela) or the main Venezuelan Workers Union or Association which basically represented all workers in Venezuela. Also, RCTV "allowed (Carlos Ortega)  to call for demonstrators to march on the presidential palace." RCTV allowed him to call for demonstrators making them part of the coup? Weren't they reporting the events and transmitting an interview of one of the main persons in the events that were happening in Venezuela? Didn't Carlos Ortega have the right to call for demonstrators? I believed we had the right to protests but I guess I'm wrong.

Of course the article cites Izarra, who at the time was news director for RCTV and after condemning RCTV he was last seen as Information Minister (I need to find the correct word seriously) and head of Telesur, a sure sign of honest and fair reporting. 

You know, I need to finish the articles before I start writing. I was wrong when I said before that the best part of the article was the rare example of Media honesty. I mean, it was really good but not as good as: "In fact it turned out that the US had conspired with the coup plotters to overthrow the government. Likewise, Chavez supporters had been +defending+ themselves against sniper attack. The Venezuelan media had misrepresented film footage to present the required version of events." I really wish I could sit down with this people so they can show me all this coup plotting proof they have. Although since I'm being paid by the CIA to write imperialist ideas it might not be of their interest. Anyways the US alleged particpiation is not as good as "Chavez supporters defending themselves against snipers." WTF? Do I really need to remind this people that almost all the people that dies were protesting against Chavez? And that of all the ones that were shot & killed by snipers, all of them were protesting against Chavez? Are they really saying that the Puente Llaguno images (I believe this is the " misinterpreted film footage" they claim) were distorted since the Chavistas were shooting at the snipers? I'm sorry but I thought snipers where up on buildings and this people looked as if they were looking down. And well there is also the problem with the shadow and the film was cropped, etc.

I'm just going to leave this post here as it is clear that Pro Chavez news, blogs, etc will always use the exact same argument: RCTV participated on a coup so they got shut down. And they will always fail to fill in the blanks: When where they found guilty of this participation? I might have missed it... I don't know, after all I am just a paid CIA employee hooked up to an imperialist, idea feeding machine.

Fair as long as it's not against me

Yesterday I was reading a "Chavista" blog and in there Okrim, the author, has a post about a hacked blog from a fellow Chavista blogger (Lubrio) which got erased by however hacked it.

http://okrimopina.blogspot.com/2007/06/respalden-sus-blogs-respaldemos-los-de.html (Link in Spanish)

He condemned the action calling it an intolerable upsetting to the point of almost making him curse. He also said: "La acción de atacar la página donde un individuo se expresa de manera libre es un atentado contra toda la comunidad bloguera: sea un blog revolucionario o no..." which can be translate as: The action of attacking the page where an individual expresses himself freely is an attack against all the blogging community. He then continues: "no defenderé NUNCA sea el atacante o el atacado de la ideología que sea. Si yo tuviera acceso y la posibilidad de eliminar blogs cuyas posiciones no comparto, como los de, por ejemplo, Kareta o Luis, jamás se me pasaría por la mente llevar a cabo ese acto tan mezquino, cobarde y despreciable, que deja bien en claro la catadura moral de quien lo perpetró..." which can be translated to: "I will NEVER defend such action whatever the ideology of the attacked or attacker may be. If I had access to eliminate blogs with positions that I don't share, like for example Kareta's or Luis', it will never cross my mind the moral "catadura" of who did this (referring to the person that erased Lubrio's blog).

I must say the Okrim is right. I too will not applaud such an action since I am a believer of freedom of speech and expression.

But, the point that I want to make is that Okrim condemns this action but on the other hand he's completley fine with the one taken against RCTV. I pointed this out as a comment in his blog to which he replied that he knew that someone would make such point and he proceeded to explain me the difference that would explain why RCTV's shutting down is ok and Lubrio's blog is not. His reasons were simple:

  1. The radio electric space is limited, the blogging one is not.
  2. RCTV's work was not erased as in Lubrio's case.
  3. The State didn't took over RCTV's broadcasting equipment while a hacker took over Lubrio's blog.
  4. Chavez closed RCTV abiding by the law while this hacker sort of broke it by forging Lubrio's identity.
These three points are completley valid, but they fail in several ways. For example, we can agree the the radio electric space is limited while the Internet space is not. So, how many TV stations does the Opposition has now? Globovision? which is a station that's not visible throughout the whole country? What about Chavez? Well, he has VTV, Telesur, Vive and now TVES which occupies the space that belonged to RCTV. shouldn't this limited space be distributed somewhat equally amongst the venezuelan audience?

As for the second point, is true that RCTV's work was not deleted and since Lubrio didn't have a backup, his work got lost. This is completely true but it is still doesn't make one right and the other one wrong.

The third point bother me a little since the government ordered the seizure of RCTV's broadcasting equipment, which I'm not sure if was followed through, but the order was there.

And last but not least, Chavez abiding by the law. It is true that the State has the right to revoke or not renew a broadcasting license, there is no discussion there. What we need to discuss is the government reasons to do such thing. Their main one is that RCTV participated on a coup, to which it was never tried and actually proven that it did, and the other one is that it was a terrorist, fascist tv station because government adepts felt like it.

What Okrim failed to realized is that even when they are conceptual differences, we are looking at the same crime. Chavez closed down, law abiding, a TV station that had a different message than what he wanted to convey. He closed down a TV station which he called terrorist, fascist and what not because he felt that if their message wasn't in line with his, they shouldn't be allowed to broadcast. On the other hand, Lubrio was the victim of the same crime. He too was silenced by someone that felt that his message shouldn't be heard (read in this case).

We are free and as free people we have the right to disagree and to have different opinions. "chavistas" should take a closer look at their slogan: Patria Socialismo o Muerte. Venceremos, translation: Country, Socialism or Death. We will win. In this slogan there is no space for a different opinion. Either you are a socialist or you'll die fighting us. This slogan leaves no room for discussion which explains exactly why it's perfectly fine to close a non socialist TV station while it's a completely treacherous thing to shut down a socialist blog.

You are free to think what you want, as long as your thoughts are in line with Chavez's. Not too much freedom there, right?

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

$250,000 of it's own money?

As it turns out, Chavez is asking his followers to give up luxury. Actually, he is demanding them to do so since he only wants true socialist by his side. I think I'm going to sit down and wait to see Jorge Rodriguez giving up his Audi and Iris Valera her Mercedes SUV just to name a few (they might have changed cars by now but you get the point). Yes, Chavez meant things that are extra, like an extra refrigerator or an extra truck or things that are just laying around and well, this government officials need to get to their jobs. But shouldn't a true socialist relay on public transportation? or maybe have a car but not such a luxury car? We would have to set the limit of luxury in order to really judge them but I just wanted to point that out.

Now the real issue here is Chavez announcement of his willing to donate $250,000 of his own money. Yes, unless the press is quoting him wrong, he did say of his own money.

Before I go any further here are some articles, in English, with the story:

Let's do some math now. I'm going to assume that the "SOCIALIST" Venezuelan president makes the same amount of money as the "CAPITALIST" US president. The amount is: $400,000 a year that, using the black market exchange rate which Chavez recently used for himself, (http://buscador.eluniversal.com/2007/06/12/eco_art_chavez-calcula--con_316727.shtml
turns out to be roughly: 1,600,000,000 Bs. Actually lets calculate it at the official rate too, which would be about half or: 860,000,000 Bs. that Chavez, if making the same as the US president, would make on a year of work. Now, we can assume that Chavez salary is not even close to the Capitalist, Imperialist, Devlisih US president, so, since I can find anywhere how much the US president should make, let's assume he makes just a quarter of it which is $100,000 or 400,000,000 Bs. at the parallel or black market rate and 215,000,000 Bs. at the official rate. Well, that figure is still to big for me, so I am going to say that Chavez actually makes just 1/8 of what the Us president makes a year which would be roughly $50,000 (a little bit over the median of what the average american family makes a year. Census link for 2002-2003). So $50,000 at the parallel market rate: 200,000,000 Bs or 107,500,000 at the official rate.

All right we have some simple math speculating what Chavez, as Venezuelan president, make a year. We are going to use the last amount of 107,500,000 Bs or a litlle less than 9,000,000 Bs per month, which would be around 12 times more than the minimum wage in Venezuela (calculating the minimum wage at 700,000 Bs per month, is actually a little less). I think is also fair to say that Chavez didn't have to much on his bank account before being president since he was just a poor para-trooper from Barinas (a state in Venezuela where Chavez is from) but I am going to set his bank account at 20,000,000 Bs which at 1998 was a decent amount for a saving account, around $28,000 calculating at a 700 Bs per US$ rate. (I'm not sure the rate is correct but since I'm assuming moth of the math we will use it).

Moving on, making $50,000 a year, for 8 years + $28,000, without spending a single dime on anything (why should he, venezuelans pay for his clothes, trips, food etc with their oil money and taxes) Chavez would have, today the amount of $428,000 which would be enough for him to donate $250,000 of his own money. He would actually be donating more than half of his money if this numbers are correct.

So, the question now is: Exactly how much money does Chavez makes a year and how much money does he has sitting in his Bank Account? I mean how much money would you need to have in order to donate $250,000 of your own money to your cause? Maybe you would donate half, or even all of it if you truly believed on it. But if Chavez had done so, wouldn't he say it out loud to prove his commitment and his socialist nature? But how does donation work for a true socialist? Is he givinng 10% of his money? is he giving more? is he giving less? Who knows, but we do know is that he has enough to give at least $250,000 of his "own" money. It would be nice if public servants finances were made public like the imperialists of the US which at least show us their Tax returns which clearly show how much they earned during the year.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Are they blind?

I am having a real hard time understanding how the main Chavista defense for the RCTV case is the fact that there was no legal proceeding and that Chavez waited for the end of the license to not renew it as an act of Totalitarian Dictatorship. Really, if you don't see how this was a totalitarian decision, let me try to illustrate you.

First I'm going to quote, what globovision quoted of what, Ecuador's President, and Chavez's firend Rafael Correa, said this sunday about the RCTV case:

"Les digo muy claro, si después de probar que un canal apoyó un golpe de Estado y que estuvo al lado de los golpistas, como lo hizo RCTV, yo cancelo ese canal", declaró Correa el diario Hoy.

Señaló que "eso no hizo Chávez, él esperó para no renovar la frecuencia".

Translation: I say it very clear, if after PROVING that a TV station supported a coup and that it was sided with its participants, like RCTV did (although this was never proved since there was no trial), I will cancel that TV station. Chavez didn't do that, he waited so he could not renew the license."

Is anybody seeing the irony here? Correa basically admits that Chavez had a complete disregard for the laws and basically skipped the due process to see if RCTV had a real involvement in the coup. Since he's such a nice guy, he waited till their license expired so he could make the decision (he, himself, and only he) to not renew it.

Can this be a more clear example about how the law is carried out on Venezuela? How can people defending Chavez admit to this and not have a problem with it? I guess they don't believe in democracy, or better yet, they believe in it when it doesn't apply to them like Chavez does. It is important to remember that Chavez created his own constitution on 1999. Who knows, maybe he failed to tell us that he was exempt from following it.

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Estudiantes del Centro del País, UC=UCV=UPEL=UBA.

Just another video showing how the National Guard has been blocking students that are trying to get the the concentrations in a clear attack to their right of free transit.

Marcha de Estudiantes Carabobeños a Caracas

Students chanting: "I came becuase I wanted to, I didn't get paid to come." (In reference to Chavez supporters who are paid to attend his protests) This was after they where stopped by the National Guard when they where trying to reach Caracas from Carabobo (a city about two hours or less from the Capital) to join the student protests.

The cause for the blockade was an alleged crash which drivers going to opposite way never saw.

What ever happen to the right of free transit?

Democracy you say? Where? I can't really see it.

Friday, June 8, 2007

What is wrong with Peter?

Well, he enjoys the freedoms of the free capitalistic world that he rejects and he embraces the Castro-Chavez-Communist regime but won't live in Venezuela or Cuba, oh no, not him.

The Link: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/~mclaren/blog/?p=102

One thing to note is that peter doesn't allow comments and I am unable to place a trackback on blogger which makes the discussion a little difficult but hey, he's a communist-leaving-in-the-freedom-of-capitalist-usa supporting the closing of a TV station after all, what else could we expect?

"The CIA is clearly trying to manipulate the global media." It just never fails to amaze me how Chavez stupid paranoia gets spread amongst his followers. The CIA...THE FREAKING CIA is controlling the "GLOBAL" media. I guess Peter, as does Chavez, has undeniable prove of the CIA's involvement. I am going to wait sitting down just in case it takes them a little long to produce such evidence.

Peter uses the same exact argument that people living in the US, that support Chavez...Ok I am just going to stop for a second here. To all you Chavez supporters on the US that think he's great and your government is bad I tell remind you of this: You live in a free country, you are free to go live in Venezuela any time you want. As a matter of fact we should change the Immigration bill to allow US citizens to trade their citizenship with venezuelan citizens, that way, venezuelans tired of Chavez can go live in the Empire and usa-freedom-enjoying-Chavez-supporters can go and experience his marvelousness first hand, right there where the action is. I am sure the lines of venezuelans willing to trade will be enourmous.

Bach to the post, Peter starts by arguing that if a USA Tv station had participated in a coup, that RCTV backed up, allegedly participates and all those arguments. Peter even goes into more detail, explaining exactly what needs to happen: "If there was a successful military coup in the United States and a particular TV station applauded the overthrow of the president (and the dissolving of Congress and the Supreme Court, as well as the suspension of the Constitution), and if then the coup was reversed by other military forces accompanied by mass demonstrations, and the same TV station did not report any of this while it was happening to avoid giving support to the counter-coup, and instead kept reporting that the president had voluntarily resigned … how long would it be before the US government, back in power, shut down the station, arrested its executives, charging them under half a dozen terrorist laws, and throwing them into shackles and orange jumpsuits never to be seen again? How long? Five minutes? The Venezuelan government waited five years." Peter, don't you realize you are basically pointing out that the Chavez government closed the station as a way of retaliation or vengeance? Should I help you see this more clearly? I will try.

Peter defends Chavez actions based on the "fact" that if a USA government was overthrown, the same overthrown government would "...shut down the station, arrested its executives, charging them under half a dozen terrorist laws, and throwing them into shackles and orange jumpsuits never to be seen again..." in less than five minutes. Notice that is not the US government, but the government that was overthrown that after a serious of unfortunate events, got back into power. But let's keep moving, under this argument, Peter is saying that good old Chavez didn't close them immediately but waited five years till the end of their license. If this were true, then what happened with due process? I mean, if this station really participated, why weren't it's owners tried? (I am getting tired of pointing this out). Why did Venevision got it's license (channel 4 with also allegedly participated on the coup) renewed when it's license was up at the same time as RCTV? You see Peter, if you are saying that Chavez didn't try this media owners but waited till their license was up to stick it to them, well...that sounds like vengeance to me. And really, if RCTV didn't get their license renewed, because they participated in the coup, aren't they entitle to a fair trial? I mean, there is no law in Venezuela stating that a TV station has to go to trial to see if they get their license renewed, although they can appeal a decision not to renew it which magically, RCTV didn't get.

Moving along in your post I have a simple answer for your question: Can anyone name a single daily newspaper in the United States that is unequivocally opposed to US foreign policy?

Answer: Rolling Stone Magazine. Just read this edition (June 07) piece about Giuliani and lat piece about the Republican candidates, as a matter of fact, just read any edition of the last 7 years of Bush and you will see how this magazine completely opposes any action of th GOP.

Some more links:

There's more links and more stories published on Rolling Stone floating around but I'll let you do your work and research them. I think the links above, even thought don't prove that the whole editorial line of Rolling Stone is completely anti-Bush, it proves that they do run articles that completely oppose Bush's Administration. My god, the last one even calls congress people thieves and perverts.

So Rolling Stone seems pretty opposition to me, even though nobody calls that, not even the President or the Congressmen (past congressman since they are not longer at Congress). You see Peter, Chavez is the one that loves labels, and as you, everything that is not in his way of thinking is simply anti-patriotic and funded by the Empire.

And by the way, you need to define your concept of mass, because when you say: "makes education more widely available to the masses of poor people,..." I believe you mean to the masses of poor people that are willing to wear the government red t-shirt uniform and chant at every government funded protest or charade. Because you see Peter, in Venezuela, if you are not with the government, you are a traitor, a pawn of the Empire. You are a burgess capitalist bastard that is out to destroy the revolution.

Enjoy your freedom in the US.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

I am just going to link to this one.

It is just that good


This is the Chavez Democracy. Now I dare anybody that supports him abroad to say they want to live in a country under this type of ruling.

A thought for the post below

As posted on The Devil's Excrement.

"· An opposition student is not necessarily a student.
· If he is a student, he is being manipulated, has no convictions
· If they have convictions, they are the ones of the Empire that thru the CIA, buys consciences.
· If the CIA has bought them, it is to use them as meat for the slaughterhouse (A terrible statement when it is made by the owner of the slaughterhouse.) and the irresponsible parents.
· They are numerically insignificant, only the tricks of the mediatic manipulation make them appear as a crowd.

On the other hand

· The pro-Chavez student is a conscientious and critical being.
· He marches because of his convictions. Nothing is behind him.
· He can reach the Miraflores Presidential Palace because he is part of the “people”
· There are always millions of them.
· Their parents do well in letting them march, they are young and should have a conscience, not go lazing around like the other ones. "

The best defense: Name Calling

When you can't argue sometimes the best defense is to try to discredit your opponent by showing their mistakes, airing out the skeletons in their closets, digging up some dirt or you can just do what Chavez does and basically name everyone who opposes him a pawn of the Empire.

The Link: http://globovision.com/news.php?nid=57699 (In spanish, there's still no link in english)
this one is not the story per say but it will help some readers understand.

As it turns out, a group of students ask for permission to speak at the National Assembly, which was given. Is just beautiful that this students were given the opportunity to speak up before the people that were elected to represent all of us. The Chavistas have made lot of emphasis in this as a proof of Venezuela's freedom speech. But let's not be fool, one good action just doesn't erase all the bad ones.

Even though this students asked for the right to speak before the Assembly, they were told they would debate against Chavista students. The students accepted and went into the Assembly to express their feelings. The first student said, (I'm just going to quote some pieces I found on this article, also in spanish: http://www.eluniversal.com/2007/06/07/pol_ava_grupo-de-universitar_07A881173.shtml)

"We are not socialist we are social beings, we are not "neoliberalistas" we are "libres" (free)...please do not criminalize our protests....we the young are only armed with conscience, solidarity, optimism and humbleness...we are responding to the threat this closure of RCTV means against freedom of expression...we are convinced all Venezuelans should be treated equally (see the post below for a better look at this)."

Basically all he said was, we want to live free. We want to be respected. We are not of this political current or this other, we are Venezuelan citizens that deserve to be treated equally without distinction of color, race or "uniform," at this point the students took of a red shirt (red is the government color and you can see everybody dressed in red on the government financed protests), to display the white shirts they were wearing underneath as a symbol of peace and emphasizing this treated equally without regards of uniform.

Next, a Chavista student spoke up saying: "The flag colors are yellow, blue and red (apparently she was a little upset about the displayed the students before here had put on with the shirts and all)...there couldn't be any more freedom of speech than the one we are currently living on...today we have this participatory democracy in which we all can debate (students on the assembly is actually pretty good)... I want to invite these students (opposition students) to go to an assembly in a barrio to experience it's power, that's real democracy...Universities show us another reality, a reality that slaps us in the face sine universities are not for the service of the people...I ask for respect for that Venezuelan majority that wants a new democracy model...I criticize actresses that are protesting in favor of RCTV, since RCTV commercialized with their bodies...private education doesn't educate for freedom and life but for exploitation and death...please explain me the difference between freedom of expression and freedom of "enterprise?"...because Marcel Granier has freedom of enterprise to create his business RCTV and another thing is the right of the people to express themselves on their media...I want to call on all students to define side, are we on the side of the people who's blood has been spilled or are we on the side of the North American empire...is treason against our own ideal to side for the burgess and the imperialists.

This girl brought some nice arguments and some things to ponder. But I can't go on without pointing out the difference in the tone of both speeches. The first one was about pieces, no mention of sides, war, blood (except when referring to the student that had been brutalized by police). The speech asks for respect and for the right to be treated equally. On the second one, the tone changes and towards the end we are bombarded with all this siding and this weird idea that I, as a free Venezuelan can choose to follow the imperialist, capitalism way because I would be incurring on treason??? So if I decide to work and really push myself to be better, and I get rewarded because of this effort, and I buy things and enjoy the fruits of this efforts I am suddenly a traitor? One other thing we need to point is that Chavistas are always trying to show their good things like this good things are going to hide the bad one, but they failed to confront the true issue. Barrio assemblies are awesome. This debate on the National Assembly is awesome. But that doesn't give Chavez the right to close down a TV station, seriously people, it just doesn't.

So I have digressed quite a bit from my original thought but here it goes. As it turns out, after the students spoke and left the assembly they were mocked, not only by the Chavistas students which one could expect, but by the assembly people specifically, Cilia Flores. And to top it all, Chavez himself called this students pawns of the American Government. He said that this students had a written guide which one of his adepts was able to obtain after a ninja-like counter-attack-combat-super-anti-CIA/MI6-Jack-Bauer-has-nothing-on-this-student kind of move of grabbing the paper left by them after they spoke. He criticized the students for using a paper as a guide for their speech. Yes, he criticized them for using notes to give a speech and assured the world this notes were drafted by the evil imperialist hand. A side note here, Chavez believes anyone who uses a note to make a speech is not worthy since he never uses them...which would explain why he talks, and talks, and talks and is always talking without making absolutely any sense (Just try to watch any of his Cadenas or the Alo Presidente and you will desperately beg him to bring some notes the next time).

If you can't say anything good about your opponent, look for the bad. If you can't say anything bad either, all you need to do is apply a little bit of the Chavez remedy: Call them Imperialist Fascist, pawns of the empire, anti government traitors or any thing that involves high treason and love for capitalism, then wash, rinse & repeat.

Democracy? What? Where?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't people living in a democracy be treated equally? Specially by government institutions?

I stole this picture

from the blog: http://unidosporvenezuela.blogspot.com/ (sorry about the abuse but I couldn't find a way to comment on this specific picture on your blog and I needed to say something about it).

For the ones that can't read spanish, is basically a Job ad looking for individuals with certain qualifications in which we see underlined one that states (attempted translation): "Formation in the concepts of socialism identified with the National Government's revolutionary process." In simpler terms, if you are not with Chavez, don't bother applying.

Democracy? certainly not in Venezuela.

The lack of arguments

Bart Jones seems to be the omnipotent know it all which all chavistas quote in order to defend Chavez decision to close down RCTV.

I just stumble across another blog citing Jones's words although I must say this is one of the worst since it doesn't do anything other than repeat Bart's words

The Link: http://elemming2.blogspot.com/2007/06/hugo-chavez-versus-far-right-tv.html

All his argument is based that if an American station would've participated in a coup, the station would've been shut down and it's owners would've been thrown to jail. I am going to start sounding as repetitive as Chavez supporters but really, they don't give me much to work with. I am going to explain this person, once more, why Chavez move is direct abuse of power, is not justified by any means and is just a political movement he needs for his revolution.

Gary, let's start by saying that you are right when you say that if something like that, participating on a coup, should be punished. We can definitely agree on that. But I have a problem understanding why this TV station owners were never tried for their involvement in such coup. I also have a problem understanding why only one of the stations got closed down and not the other three. Actually, let's talk about Venevision (channel 4) who's license was also up for renewal and who had the same exact level of participation as RCTV (channel 2 that got closed down) but got it's license renewed with no problem (other than the fact that it didn't get it for 20 years as the law stipulates but for 5, when Chavez will be up for reelection again). Could it be that Venevision's owner had a private meeting with Chavez and after it the station suddenly stopped it's opposition tone and Chavez stopped calling it an imperialist, conspiratorial network? Shouldn't all stations that participated be measured under the same rule? And shouldn't this measure have a due process with a trial, and a judge...or maybe, just maybe, shouldn't this not renewal of the license come from the organization (CONATEL, think of th FCC) in charge of this sort of things?

Really Gary, you need to understand that when you call yourself a Liberal, you are implying that you think for yourself, and quoting some other person's work, without even trying to make a point doesn't say much about your capabilities to analyze a problem or situation.

I'm just going to stop this post right here cause if Gary, or someone else, wishes to see more evidence about how this decision is a completely anti democratic decision by nothing more than a ruthless totalitarian thug, they can read all the posts I have in this site as well as thousands of posts found on the links I have in this blog that explain with detail this issue.

Before I go, I am going to say that I wish to find a blog that can truly make a point when defending this closing station by Chavez issue. Really people, you need to do better than quoting Bart if you want to really be taken seriously.

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

vamos pa la calle (Let's go to the streets)

The video below caught my attention when they show the text: "No a la violacion de la autonomia Universitaria" which translates to: No to the violation if the University's autonomy, more or less.

The video is simple. It shows a montage of pictures of the student protests that are happening in Venezuela in rejection of the closure of the tv station RCTV. But that quote brought up an interesting point I was already dwelling about in my free time: If this protests lead to nowhere, is the Government going to go after the Universities?

We already have Chavez on tape stating that crisis are a necessary evil and that sometimes, one must generate such crisis in order to achieve a greater good. Now, when he said this, he was referring to the events of April 11, that resulted in the failed coup to which he now victimizes himself on any chance he gets. To make my point a little clearer, Chavez basically said that he was responsible for setting in motion the events that gave him power to prosecute every major opposition person or institution like for instance: RCTV, which, according to the government, didn't get it's license renewed because of their participation on the coup. He basically said that they threw the bait, and we caught it.

Fine, so they got us that time and it sucks till today. But couldn't the government be doing the same thing in order to have a "legitimate" reason to attack the universities, which is the only institution that Chavez has been unable to control since he control all the other institutions in Venezuela...well except the CTV (Confederacion de trabajoders de Venezuela, I translated in an earlier post to something like Workers Association of Venezuela), who he couldn't control but instead ended up creating it's counterpart completely adept to his government the "Union National de Trabajadores, UNT" (National Workers Union).

If Chavez was able to close a TV station because of their alleged participation on a coup, and now they are assuring that this protests are being generated by university owners, how long will we need to wait to have our first private University either closed or expropriated on the grounds of their alleged participation in the mega-ultra-super-usa backed-cia controlled-alien-conspiracy against Chavez?

Is the Chavez Government really playing us for fools...again?


Sunday, June 3, 2007

The Chrsitian Science Monitor

Bart Jones article appears once more. Now, it made it's appearance on The Christian Science Monitor which is a publication by the First Church of Christ, Science.

The link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p09s01-coop.html?page=1

Is interesting that if you google Bart Jones + RCTV, there are several sites running his piece. One of the most interesting is FAIR: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=8882, which already has it's own piece on the matter.

Now, more interesting is that all this sites are either a newspaper or some sort of portal for free speech, freedom of press or the like. The most interesting thing is that by running this article, they are siding with Bart and applauding the closure of a TV station based on the claims of it's participation on a failed coup.

Well, freedom of speech give you that right. But applauding the closure of freedom of speech in a pro freedom of speech site it's a but ironic.

I already talked about Bart's article here: http://chavezcrap.blogspot.com/2007/05/news-hounds-part-i.html

so I'm not doing it again. What did do is find this link: http://www.steerforth.com/books/display.pperl?isbn=9781586421359
. Yes, Bart wrote a biography about Chavez called Hugo!. Notice the exclamation point in the title exalting Hugo's name. Seems to me someone loves Chavez quite a bit...am I wrong?

So it's clear that Bart is a little biased with Chavez, and actually, I don't think there is nothing wrong with that. He's entitled to have his own opinion and it's ridiculous to claim that a journalist can be completely fair when reporting a matter that somehow appeals to them. Yes people, I am defending Bart's right to say good things about Chavez and to say that it's ok for him to close down a TV station. Now, that doesn't make him right and it doesn't mean I'm ok with it either. All I'm saying is that he has the right to think and write however he wishes. With that said, to Bart and all his followers I ask: If Bart has the right to report the news as he sees them, didn't RCTV had the same right? Weren't they in the right to say: "We don't like Chavez." Isn't freedom of speech about saying what you like or don't like?

Some may argue RCTV is an institution, a TV station while Bart is just one person. RCTV is one of the major TV channels in Venezuela while Bart is just a simple writer. RCTV should report what it's audience wanted, not what its directors wanted; Bart, well he can do whatever he wants since he is a free human being enjoying all the goods that come with it. All this arguments are completley valid arguments except maybe for one: "RCTV should've reported what it's audience wanted. This one comes from the statement that RCTV participated on the coup by transmitting anti Chavez protests and encouraging people to go protest..Hmmm, so if the people watching RCTV were the ones that were protesting, or the ones that wanted to know about the protests, wasn't RCTV reporting what it's audience wanted? Doesn't VTV, and now TVES reported all day yesterday Chavez support gathering because that is what it's audience wanted? (Important to note here is that VTV and TVES are supposedly public stations that should be of the use of the whole public and not the people sided with the government while RCTV is a private owned station that can transmit what they want as long as it is within the rules).

More and more, as I keep writing this posts, I come to the conclusion that Chavez supporters are just defending this closure repeating the same argument over and over. And argument that is as false as it is empty and without logic. Their argument, Chavez didn't close a station, he just didn't renew it's license because they participated on a coup, leaves lots of holes that they don't seem to care, seem to omit or plain simple seem to report in order to make their case.

We can keep going on and on, and I will keep my work of finding this posts and rebuking them here. The truth is Chavez is a tyrant governing with totalitarian power who has divided my country and who has not done any good for his people (yes, some people have seen some improvement, specially the new oligarchy of government officials). But when on a democracy you fail to govern for all your people, well the a government by the people for the people base of a democracy is lost and you become a fascist. Oh my, see this Chavez supporters who love calling the opposition fascist? When you people with your leader just govern for yourselves and call the opposition, how has the right of not thinking like you and even not like you, the enemies of your revolution. Go with statements like they will not come back or they will not pass, you become fascists. Here's a definition for you:

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

Taken from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=fascist

It's important to note the Fascism militants denominated themselves "Black Shirts." Chavistas changed the color to red and we all know how there protests or gatherings look: Red, Red...Red...Rojo Rojito.

Fausta's blog

Fausta's blog

"· An opposition student is not necessarily a student.
· If he is a student, he is being manipulated, has no convictions
· If they have convictions, they are the ones of the Empire that thru the CIA, buys consciences.
· If the CIA has bought them, it is to use them as meat for the slaughterhouse (A terrible statement when it is made by the owner of the slaughterhouse.) and the irresponsible parents.
· They are numerically insignificant, only the tricks of the mediatic manipulation make them appear as a crowd.

On the other hand

· The pro-Chavez student is a conscientious and critical being.
· He marches because of his convictions. Nothing is behind him.
· He can reach the Miraflores Presidential Palace because he is part of the “people”
· There are always millions of them.
· Their parents do well in letting them march, they are young and should have a conscience, not go lazing around like the other ones."

All their argument is based on calling us thugs, imperialist etc. So, ok, we are imperalists thugs, Chavez is still a tyrant paranoid dictator and nothing will change that fact. So what are they going to argue now?

Saturday, June 2, 2007

Red Pepper again.

It looks like pepper is going to become a nice source of material for this blog. His ranting are so amazing that I am only going to talk about one more of them today so I can pace out my postings a little better.

The link in question: http://redpepper.blogs.com/venezuela/2007/06/legislators_pre.html

I'm not going to quote pepper on this pot to keep it simple and I realize whoever reads it can just click on the link and understand what I'm talking about.

Well on his post, Pepper never you questioned how this two National Assembly Chavistas had recordings of a private telephone conversation. Let's not get into what the conversation was about yet, but let's focus for a moment in the proven fact that the Venezuelan Government is actively recording and monitoring conversations of their opponents. I can't find what to say about your disregard for this direct attack to democracy and freedom. Let me repeat, these people had their private conversation, between husband and wife, RECORDED.

But, lets skip this for the sake of argument. Lets assume this is completely legal and normal so we can focus in what they are taking about. The conversation between Marquina and his wife is a conversation that is very similar to a conversation I've had with several friends and family. I'm I a conspirator too? Well, according to you, Desiree, Calixto and Chavez, I am a fascist, golpist, terrorist extremist sent by Bush, Washington and the CIA.

But was this conversation stating that the students are zombies controlled by Washington and opposition politicians, or...maybe, just like my conversation, Marquina & his wife were stating the point that this spontaneous protest by the student body needed to be kept a civil protests with no ties to the politicians so that the government couldn't discredit them the way they are discrediting them because of their supposed tie with the politicians?

Yes, we could go on and on about the politicians acting as if they are not involved but are involved by acting that they are not involved etc etc etc. Now, in the conversation, do you really see any hard evidence of the involvement of the politicians in the protests? I certainly can't, all I see is evidence of the unlawful invasion of privacy by the Venezuelan government as well as two people sharing my same sentiment of the importance of keeping these protests away from politics so that the Chavez government and people like you, can't discredit them as a new coup attempt.

I think Chavez loves to invent this coup so then he can claim they fail so he can feel better about his failed attempts on 1992.

Red Pepper is very very very very stupid.

The link in question:


Let's do this point by point:
1. Is the Venezuelan government shutting down the RCTV Station?

Contrary to some reports, the RCTV station is not being closed down. Rather, the Venezuelan government has chosen not to renew RCTV’s licence to broadcast via Venezuela’s Channel Two when this expires on 27 May. RCTV will continue to be able to operate freely in Venezuela on the public airwaves on cable and on satellite, as will the many TV and radio stations that RCTV owner Empresas 1BC runs across Venezuela." So is not a closing but a not renewal of a license. Not really Red Pepper because when you seize their broadcasting equipment, leaving them unable to broadcast, well, I think you pretty much shut it down since they won't be able to transmit by cable or public airwa....what? Didn't you understand that by not renewing their license they can't transmit on the public airwaves?

2. "Why has the government decided not to renew RCTV’s licence?As with other democracies, Venezuelan law allows the government the right to grant broadcast licences, renew them or let them expire. The government has made the decision not to renew because of RCTV’s violation of numerous laws – most notably the active support it gave to a military coup in April 2002 to overthrow the democratically-elected Chávez government." This is the most debatable point of your post, actually is the only debatable one since the first one is pretty much very unfunded and I think I proved you wrong already. So, lots of people say RCTV actively participated in the coup mainly, because the Chavez government said that RCTV actively participated on the coup. Now, have you seen proof of RCTV involvement on the" coup? Did you ever asked yourself why, if they participated in the coup, their owner were never tried? If they had participated on the coup, the owners that is, is it ok to leave thousands out of work just to punish the people that were supposedly involved? Can you answer this questions? I don't think so.

Oh, and by the way, on your RCTV involvement on the coup: "In April 2002, a violent military coup temporarily overthrew the democratically-elected government of President Hugo Chávez. At least 13 people were killed and in the 48 hours that the coup plotters held power there was violent repression against those protesting for Chávez’s return and many were shot at by the police. The coup plotters overturned key components of Venezuela’s democratic constitution - closing down the elected National Assembly, the Supreme Court and other state institutions. ", you are using the same words posted all over pro Chavez blog. If you don't believe me, just look at the other posts I have here.Now the best part of yours is that you failed to indicate RCTV's involvement on the coup, way to go.

Entrevista a ministra rara

A parody of the government excuses: We are fascists sent by the US government. We are terrorists. We are unable of thinking.

Taken from The Devil's Excrement Blog

We love this blog more and more.

Here are some awesome things posted in there:


The best part: "· An opposition student is not necessarily a student.
· If he is a student, he is being manipulated, has no convictions
· If they have convictions, they are the ones of the Empire that thru the CIA, buys consciences.
· If the CIA has bought them, it is to use them as meat for the slaughterhouse (A terrible statement when it is made by the owner of the slaughterhouse.) and the irresponsible parents.
· They are numerically insignificant, only the tricks of the mediatic manipulation make them appear as a crowd.

On the other hand

· The pro-Chavez student is a conscientious and critical being.
· He marches because of his convictions. Nothing is behind him.
· He can reach the Miraflores Presidential Palace because he is part of the “people”
· There are always millions of them.
· Their parents do well in letting them march, they are young and should have a conscience, not go lazing around like the other ones.

But on top of that:

· Actors do not suffer, they are trained to cry
· If violence is exercised on the part of pro-Chavez forces (including the use of weapons) it is not violence, it is part of the defense of the pretty fatherland.
· When someone in the opposition calls for a demonstration, he is a conspirator. But if, from the heights of power, you convoke your supporters to instill fear, it is the pretty fatherland that is being protected.
· The image of the attempt on John Paul II’s life is an invitation to kill Chavez.
· And last, it was not a shutdown, it was the end of the concession. How many times am I going to say it!"

Yeah...almost all the post.

Yes, that is the police preventing students from leaving their University. I love all the freedom this picture shows.

And finally, Chavez's idea of free speech: A 24/7 Cadena.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

FAIR. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Hell yeah, we found some people that are completely for freedom of speech. Not only that, they are against media biasing. I can't believe I am so lucky to...wait, oh, they are actually justifying RCTV's closing. Who would've thought that "FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986" would actually applaud censorship?

Could it be that they forgot their own motto, mission statement or whatever they want to call their bullshit "criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986" claim? To answer this we will remit to their article posted here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

Now, the article itself is written pretty well and it cites different source. It offers a good comparison between both sides which is hard to come around these days when dealing with Venezuelan news. All that is fine and it goes with their line of thought about them being the media police of the world, or at least trying to be I don't know. Now, the problem comes right at the end when they decide to conclude, with a quote from Patrick McElwee of the U.S.-based group Just Foreign Policy where he states: "The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves." Actually (damn it, how could I miss this) their stupid title:
"Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs
Distorting the Venezuelan media story"
implies their position about what's happening in Venezuela right now.

Of course, the documentary comes in as their first source of information. I am still trying to understand how this documentary became the ultimate source for all the pro-Chavez people out there. Did anyone thought about fact checking for a second? I am going to repost both videos here just so this people can watch the documentary again and then see the analysis that was made of it pointing the lies it says.

The Documentary

The analysis of the lies in it made by Wolfgang Schalk

Now, to really prove my point, I am going to say that the documentary is true as well as the analysis. Basically, they are two different points of views, completely biased to either side of the argument. So with that, I am taking the liberty of canceling both of them as evidence of the question, is it ok to shut down a tv station? Cause yes, that is the question we are discussing here.

Moving on: " On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." So here, they are saying that RCTV, by transmitting a message of top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, are becoming terrorist and coup plotters themselves. An interesting thing is that they fail to point out to people around the world who Carlos Ortega is or was. Well, he was no other than the leader of the labor? workers? association (Presidente de la Confederacion de Trabajadores de Venezuela, CTV). Let me attempt the translation, President of the Workers Confederation of Venezuela. Now, to me this is kind of important cause it identifies Ortega as something more than just a coup plotter; he represented Venezuelan workers.

The next interesting thing on this paragraph is the quote from Vice-Admiral Victor Ramirez Perez:
"We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." I guess they are trying to make a point with the connection of the quote, being transmitted by the media...or some sort of weird thing that I just don't get. Seriously, a Vice-Admiral says they have a weapon, sorry, a deadly weapon: THE MEDIA, and this people signal him, actually not him, but THE MEDIA, as the baddest, meanest coup plotter in the world? I can't even keep going on this paragraph because is hard for me to make sense about what they are trying to point out. Maybe is just me, I might be really dumb or something, who knows?

The next paragraph most important quote comes from
Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post: "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal."" I was under the impression that freedom of speech basically gave you the freedom to express yourself. Under that premise, I am under the impression that a privately owned media, has the right to express themselves....you know what, not themselves, but the collective sentiment of their major audience, which in this case was no other than the ousting of Chavez from power. One thing though, I need to make clear, people were protesting because is their right. They were protesting because Chavez had fired people from PDVSA (the state owned oil company in Venezuela) because they were not in the line of thinking of his revolution. This, and lots of bad politics form Chavez, caused the people to take the streets three days before the coup and the world became witness of the biggest protest and concentration of people that had ever taken place in Venezuela.

http://www.urru.org/11A/Fotos.htm (Look at the pictures (1) (2) etc on the fourth link from top to bottom).

As for the coup, yes, it happened. The opposition leaders made horrible mistakes and most of it's sectors didn't like the dissolution of powers and other unconstitutional decisions that were made, but I can't still see the Media's involvement in the whole thing so lets keep going.

Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela." This is one of the best lines this article offers. You know, it implies that Chavez was nice to the media, he didn't prosecute them, he didn't jail them, basically, he forgave them. Seriously FAIR people, what's up with fact checking? actually, what's up with common sense? Let's take a look at time here.

April 11, 2002; we have a coup involving the media.
May 27, 2007; we close one of the station that participated in the coup.

So based on the point you guys made above, either Chavez is a saint, or there's something up. If the media and it's owners where involved in the coup, why weren't they tried, put in jail, etc? Why were the officers that publicly called for the stepping down of Chavez tried, and put free (which is a good thing by the way and every person on the military should follow in their steps). Why, even after Luis Tascon (Senator or Congressman, or whatever he is, for the
Officialism) called for the "interpelacion" (might translate to judgment...trial maybe) of media owners, this never took place? Why does Chavez decides five years later, that he is going to shut down a tv station, leaving a lot of people out of work, people that just worked on the Tv station. People like janitors, diner cooks, cameraman, boom operators etc, that have been doing their job. Why do this when all he had to do was try the media owners? And really, if the TV station had to been shut down because the law said so (more on the license later), why is it that now we get stuck with a TV station, completely biased in favor of the government, who is not covering any of the vents that are taking place on the streets? Actually, why, you the god of fairness in media, seem to have no problem with this fact, or the fact that no goverment tv station gives serious coverage to any of the opposition events, specially when they are kids being shot at, arrested and the like?



Try to look for any of those images or photos on any media in Venezuela. What's that? you can't find any...or some of them barely...if you look and look. Do you know why? Well, for one, government TV stations, news papers, radio etc are not reporting anything about it. From time to time they call the protest as small, insignificant and violent. Now the first two are just stupid, just look at the pictures and videos, but the third one is not. The protests are indeed violent thanks to the police, military and Chavez's foes attacking kids (age average of the protests is 15.5).

Next paragraph: "
When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs—in RCTV's case, the American film Pretty Woman." RCTV station was being attacked by Chavez foes, look at the second video posted here, towards the end. How can you expect them to cover something if they were being attacked? Seriously people...what's up with fact checking? This paragraph also has this quote from former NPR editor John Dinges: "What RCTV did simply can't be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles…. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they're forced to, but simply because they don't agree with what's happening, you've lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles." Wow, this people just amaze me more and more as I read. So, I think we established that RCTV, and the other stations, were being attacked so that sort of prevent them from reporting. Maybe, they could've just gone out and fight the crowd and die doing their job, like some journalists in Venezuela have done. But you see, when you fail to report what's happening because you...let me read, oh...wait, during a period of national crisis...not because you are forced to but because you don't agree....holly fucking crap, so I guess the Chavez media not covering the protest that I've shown on the links above does not apply to this claim? Really, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

My god...I had to stop after that last paragraph. The irony of it was just insane.

Following paragrpah: " The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV's involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station's criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela's media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet." So...I am now one of the most dissident people on the planet...right on! This people call anyone against the government: "The Most Dissident in the Planet." It even sounds like a movie...wow, I'm proud of being part of the most dissident people in the planet. ok, seriously...how many TV stations are left...that are dissident? 3? Venevision, Televen and Globovision? Well, Televen has been Chavista for quite sometime, and Venevision, after it's owner Gustavo Cisneros, had a meeting with Chavez has been very non "most dissident people in the planet." So that leave Globovision, which Chavez already threaten to close. I guess their "failure to note our dissident media" is not a failure after all since we only have a nationally broadcasted TV station that actually is not seen that well on some parts of the country.

But all right, the license had expired and it didn't get renewed because of the alleged RCTV involvement in the coup and there was no political reason behind it. Sounds legit, the media owners were not tried because...who knows..so then when the license expires Chavez decides not to renew it. Fair enough, for the sake of continuing the argument...let's say it's fair enough..license expire...no renewal because of coup, absolutely no political reason.

So now,
McElwee is talking about Venezuelan law, and the licensing system etc. So technically, the license expires and that's it. But shouldn't the governing media authority (CONATEL) be the one calling for the none renewal? Why is Chavez the one that decides to not renew it? Why when RCTV tried to appeal this (I don't think the right term is appeal) it was negated since their appeal named Chavez and Chavez had nothing to do with this and they should've directed their thing to CONATEL? And again, why leave thousands out of a job instead of trying the real people involved?

Finally, we are back at the conclusion: "
The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves." I am not going to say anything else about the article and I will let people judge for themselves.

I am going to end this post by asking FAIR people a couple of questions: How can people defending freedom of speech and fairness, applaud the shutting of a TV station? Maybe, I I'm misinterpreting and you don't applaud in any way this shutting down. Maybe, you are just trying to be "FAIR" and present both sides of the argument. But if that was really the case, why do you end...and actually start in your title, by defending Chavez decision? If you are trying to be air, why do you omit relevant pieces of information like the non coverage of the protest by the Chavez Media? How can you be ruling for censorship, cause seriously people, a non-renewal of a license...based on an alleged coup participation, five years ago; participation based on the fact that they reported the protests and displayed anti Chavez comments? Are you that blind or stupid? Are you that fool that you don't see the irony that exhumes from your article?

Actually, I'll end this with a promise I made to my sister in law. She asked me to invite all of you people that support Chavez to experience these protests with her. She asked me to describe the feeling of panic and fear when being attacked in the middle of a protest by the same people that are supposed to protect you as well as armed people in motorcycles, how are defending their revolution called for by their leader, Hugo Chavez. She asked me to describe you the feeling of inhaling tear gas and running blindly for your life. She asked me this things after barely calming down right after this events took place. But I have to tell her, that I can't
fulfill my promise because I have no words to describe these situations to you. My hands shake just at the thought that someone that I care deeply about, risked her life for what she believes in and people, like you assholes in stupid FAIR crap, are justifying Chavez's wrongdoing. To you, in her name, in the name of all the people being attacked, I say FUCK YOU. Women like my Rabbit, and like the one in the picture below:

have more balls and integrity than what you can ever dream of having.

Ps: that is a tear gas bomb she's kicking.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Really? Shit I wasn't aware of that. You see since I was just watching one of Chavez's everlasting non stop "Cadenas" (I should put a glossary of Venezuelan terms so I don't have to keep explaining this stuff....ok Cadena means when Chavez decides that all TV and radio stations are going to broadcast whatever stupidity he wants to blur out).

The reason we are talking about the not televised "Cadena" happy revolution is because all the bloggers / journalists out there that somehow defend the closure of RCTV, are using the same exact source to defend their claims. And what source is that? Well, the documentary made by two Irish women about the events of April 2002: "The Revolution will not be Televised."

Seriously, if you read them all, they all say the exact same crap, almost with the exact same words. There are some that even state that they are using the film as our friend Bobo Piper or our friend Ourman. Others, are more careful to disclose their source, and just blatantly repeat what's said on the film like the case of Bart

If you read their posts, you will see that they all talk about the Media Coup, about people on the streets supporting Chavez. About Andrecito resigning because he belt betrayed because of the Media blackout and all sort of bullshit. I guess it makes great journalism to report about what you see on a documentary that was completely twisted and taken out of context. Great fact checking to all of you...specially the journalists.

So here, I present you the Documentary in Question:

As well as the analysis of the lies in it made by Wolfgang Schalk

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

News Hounds Part II

Let's just start a new post.

Dear people at News Hounds, the reason you are not seeing any of this is because no media in Venezuela can give coverage to it or else, you can face closing since you are, by transmitting events that are happening, inviting people to commit crimes. Yes, that is right. If you report events that the government doesn't want you to report, then you can get penalized. Sounds very freedom of speech and actually very "right of information" that in a democracy me and my fellow Venezuelans should enjoy. But, since you are a media people, and you need to see it in order to believe it, here are some links that might help you understand whats happeneing and why you are not seeing any more coverage:

  1. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=rctv
  2. http://youtube.com/watch?v=FKFRidQSYgk
Ok, for the video I will translate and explain some key points. At the beginning Chavez condemns Globovision because they were inciting people to kill Chavez. Now the images in question, http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=57034&clave=a%3A1%3A%7Bi%3A0%3Bs%3A12%3A%22william+lara%22%3B%7D
(This second link comes straight from the Bolivarian News Agency, or Chavez News Agency) are of the failed attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II, which where accompanied by a song by Ruben Blades, if I'm not mistaken, in which he says something like: Don't loose faith, this doesn't end here. Now this piece was part of a longer (I think 5 or more minutes) piece that showed a sequence of important images transmitted by RCTV, being the failed Pope assassination one of these images. Now, I can't say much about the choice of music, but Chavez comparing himself to the Pope? Stating that this image called people to kill him? Oh you've got to be kidding me. Seriously...Chavez comparing himself to the Pope?? Please.

So we keep going in the video he alerts Globovision in National Chain (when the President uses all the media to transmit whatever he wants to say for the time he wishes) that he is going to apply the "minimum" basically close them.

Then, at around one minute he calls the people to be alert and he says the if they need to create a new April 13th, he will command it. So basically, if we need to go an attack the media, pillage stores etc...well he will command it.

1:23 minutes, we, the opposition, are called the adversaries like we are in the middle of a war, and then he keeps calling the people to be alert and defend their revolution.

At about two minutes he calls for the Chief of Communication, vice President, CONATEL, to monitor the media closely, because the media is calling to kill, disobey authority etc. Not sure what media...oh he meant Globovision who was the only one transmitting what it could of the protests being held. After we see Globovision statements and some people in one of the protests.

So, RCTV gets closed because they called people to protest on 2002, yet Chavez is doing the same, in "Cadena" and this is ok? Seriously, shouldn't the law apply equally to everybody, including the president? I guess not when you are a Dictator.

Anyway people at News Hounds, next time you want to criticize your Fox News station, try to be more careful as to what arguments you use, because applauding the closing of a Tv station to justify your attacks against Fox, doesn't say much about you belief in freedom of speech. Next time you claim that they are only 4 people marching and that there are no shots etc, I don't know, see if you can communicate with people in Venezuela like I did, cause you see, I was born and lived most part of my life in Venezuela and I have friends and family still there who, are not sure what's going on since there are is no media reporting, but they've heard and seen shots fired, they've been gassed and have seen people getting arrested for no reason. So to you people at News Hounds, in the name of all the people protesting for their right of freedom of speech, that you so blatantly dismiss, I say Fuck You.

News Hounds Part I

Their link: http://www.newshounds.us/2007/05/30/big_story_exaggerating_venezuelan_unrest.php

Ok, this people are against the biased reporting of Fox news. These people claim in their site that: "Appalled by our results, we, who would not meet in person until months later, banded together in cyberspace in concern and outrage over the failure of American media, and Fox News in particular, to relate the news properly. Rather than serve as the public's eyes and ears, Fox and other media conglomerates have become echo chambers for the rich and powerful with whom they have become all too cozy. This blog is an attempt to counter that alarming condition. We believe that a viable democracy depends upon viable media. We invite you to join us in our efforts here and elsewhere to make a difference in the future of our country."

So they seemed pretty much in favor with freedom of speech. I wonder what would Al Gore think if he saw something like their post in which, taking as a source an article on the L.A. Times by reporter Bart Jones who lived eight years in Venezuela and can give great detail and justify the closing of a media.
But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office.
Reading the article in question we find this:

  1. "But the case of RCTV — like most things involving Chavez — has been caught up in a web of misinformation." Yes Bart and Newshound people, misinformation like the one you are giving, thank you very much.
  2. "But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office." Seems like RCTV was against Chavez from the begining and that Chavez didn't win the elecation thank to the coverage of all the media plus the support of all the economic and social "estratos" (somebody please translate) of Venezuela.
  3. "For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez." Yeah Bart, they where covering the events, you know, like people being shot and those sort of things.
  4. "After military rebels overthrew Chavez and he disappeared from public view for two days, RCTV's biased coverage edged fully into sedition." Do you mean after Chavez resigned, asked to be taken to Cuba and was taken to Fuerte Tiuna while they decided if he was going to be granted safe passage to Cuba or was going to be tried in Venezuela?
  5. "Thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets to demand his return, but none of that appeared on RCTV or other television stations." I don't know about thousands, but I do know that some went to the TV stations to attack them, which they broadcast asking for help, btw, this wasn't on the 12 after Chavez resigend, this was on the 13 after Chavez came back to power.
  6. "RCTV News Director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he received an order from superiors at the station: "Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters." Andres, who was later appointed Chief of Information and then Director or President of State managed TV Station Telesur. And the Zero pro- Chavez? It meant the sackings that were taking place.
  7. "Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The U.S. government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt." Exactly, why did this closure come after five years of the coup. If the closing is indeed because of their participation, where is the trial? Why did Chavez order it himself and not CONATEL (the organism in charge of communications, sort of like the FCC).
  8. "Radio, TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chavez." This one has got to be the best one. You see Bart, and Newshounds, In Venezuela we have a law of social responsability we call the "Spring Law" or "Ley Resorte" (not sure why they call it that really). Anyways, this law basically prohibits the Media of openly criticizing the government. Yes, there are progams in which people give their opinion and actually criticize the government...wait a minute I am contradicting myself...oh, that's right, you can criticize but lightly. You see Brat, you can get penalized with 72 hours of closure for showing images of the failed attempt to kill the Pope. http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=57028 (Link in spanish). As fot the unthreatened part, well: http://freerctv.com/ I have to say that my favorite part is when he shows the picture of Ravell (President of Globovision, one of the main TV stations in Venezuela) and tell his followers they need to identify the enemies of the revolution.
Now, I have only talked about Brat's article but my post started becuase I found him on News hounds, actually, I saw the article previously and was getting ready to write when I found it again on News Hounds. But you see, the thing that pissed me more about News Hounds was this one: "we see four women smiling, chanting, and banging on kitchen pots - and uniformed officers firing (tear gas and rubber bullets, we're told) into a crowd." Oh my.

Our Man In Granada

Second: Our Man In Granada.

His Link: http://ourman.typepad.com/omig/2007/05/the_revolution_.html

Distance from Venezuela: 1,235.42 miles or 1,988.22 Km approximately.

Has visited Venezuela: unknown.

Sources: "The revolution will not be televised" Documentary.

Well, it's kind of sad that I have to attack this blogger since most of his posts (at least the ones I saw) are kind of cool. But sadly for him, he decided to praise Chavez while living in Granada, Nicaragua.

This post doesn't say much except the emotion that he felt after watching the documentary: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" to defend Chavez closing of RCTV (Venezuelas oldest TV station).

All right people, here's the thing. I don't know if your mothers, or fathers, or a friend or someone in your live ever told you that you can't believe everything that you see on TV, and well, on a Documentary, specially if such tv program or documentary is of political or religious nature. Why you ask? Well because unless it is done by a robot or a computer it will be biased on the beliefs of their creators. For those of you who don't know (or where really lazy and didn't click or read the link above) this documentary was created by two Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley
Donnacha O'Briain, who were at the country making a documentary about his Highness, Hugo Chavez. Now, if somebody was in another country making a documentary about it's leader, wouldn't that make you believe they support such leader? To me, it sounds like if you are committed to a project, specially such an artistic project as a documentary, you must love what you are doing, and I don't think that if you dislike Chavez, or just don't care about him, you would be doing a documentary.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say this girls were completely unbiased and honest, here 's a great link with the errors, or honest mistakes, found in the documentary: http://www.11abril.com/index/especiales/chavezthefilm.asp#mentiras.

So after looking at the documentary and then looking at all the problems it had, I don't understand how someone, who I guess has not lived in Venezuela, can praise and even say that he would love to march for Chavez.

That just gave me an idea. I should create a reality TV show called "The Toughest Marcher" (yeah the name is kind of lame but bare with me since it is a work in process). In this show I would get lame asses like Ourman or my friend Bob and I will place them on the street with nothing more than a flag, some noisemakers and a pan. They will need to complete a course of...I don't know a couple of miles while they are attacked by: tear gas, rubber bullets, stones, molotovs and snipers. If they reach their destiny they'll become the Toughest Marcher (damn that name is really lame, but who cares, you get my point). So, after the game I would interview the participants, in this case Ourman, and ask him how nice the march was after being attacked for using your right to protest, cause you see Ourman, we were marching for what we believed at the time. As a matter of fact, students, from 13 to 20...25, not sure, are currently marching for what they believe in. It might not be something you care about, hell, they might even be wrong or blinded by the media, but the truth is, they are there cause they think in their heart that what they are doing matters (and it does immensely...thanks to all of you). And I don't know if you've seen the images, but we are getting gassed, shot at, attacked etc by police and Chavez foes.

So to end this post I say to you Ourman, Fuck you. The next time you want to "want to be, not only on the "winning" side, but also witness wrongs being righted before my eyes" remember that when you are going up against an oppressive government, you will get gassed, shot at, attacked, and you might die in the process. So again, in the name of all the venezuelans that have perished while protesting pacifically, that have been hurt while marching for what they believed, I give you a big FUCK YOU.