NationStates Jolt Archive


I thought Chavez was a good guy, or that's what I've been told by multiple socialists

Armed Bookworms
28-03-2005, 23:19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5755-2005Mar27?language=printer


The first step was a new media content law, adopted by the Chavez-controlled legislature last December, that subjects broadcast media to heavy fines or the loss of their licenses for disseminating information deemed "contrary to national security." Its impact was soon felt: Two of the most prominent anti-government journalists lost their jobs as anchors on morning television shows, and Venezuelans quickly noticed the appearance of self-censorship among those who remained.

Ten days ago Chavez handed Izarra a still-bigger stick: a new penal code that criminalizes virtually any expression to which the government objects -- not only in public but also in private.

Start with Article 147: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light." That sanction, the code implies, applies to those who "disrespect" the president or his functionaries in private; "the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly."

There's more: Article 444 says that comments that "expose another person to contempt or public hatred" can bring a prison sentence of one to three years; Article 297a says that someone who "causes public panic or anxiety" with inaccurate reports can receive five years. Prosecutors are authorized to track down allegedly criminal inaccuracies not only in newspapers and electronic media, but also in e-mail and telephone communications.

Ain't communism fun?
Refused Party Program
28-03-2005, 23:21
Chavez is a social democrat, not a communist.
Drunk commies reborn
28-03-2005, 23:23
Chavez is a social democrat, not a communist.
Then why is he seizing private property and giving it away to the poor? Granted, the poor deserve a decent living and a good job, but just stealing from people to give it to them doesn't seem right or sustainable.
Armed Bookworms
28-03-2005, 23:24
Chavez is a social democrat, not a communist.
Cause, you know, that makes it all better.
Free Soviets
28-03-2005, 23:26
Then why is he seizing private property and giving it away to the poor? Granted, the poor deserve a decent living and a good job, but just stealing from people to give it to them doesn't seem right or sustainable.

because venezuela is one of those place with essentially feudal land systems?
Niccolo Medici
28-03-2005, 23:26
Chavez is good guy? **laughs** Oh boy.

I miss my subscription to the Economist, they had endless fun lamenting his policies. They tore into him at every available opportunity. They were right to do it too, Chavez's economic policies have 1 good idea in them for every 5 bad ones.

As one friend put it, "This guy is a pr!ck on top of an assh*le." ;)
Scouserlande
28-03-2005, 23:28
He's a bit authoritrian for a social democract, He's just a hard line socalist really, yeah some of the stuff he dose is questionable but then again, as oposed to the rest of latin america he looks like a saint to me.
Niini
28-03-2005, 23:29
I'm suprised, on the other hand I'm too tired to read the original (it seemed longer)
I have to check this later. and find more info...
Suprised, but interested.

Armed Bookworms don't worry. Chavez is one of the good guys :)
Industrial Experiment
28-03-2005, 23:29
Chavez is good guy? **laughs** Oh boy.

I miss my subscription to the Economist, they had endless fun lamenting his policies. They tore into him at every available opportunity. They were right to do it too, Chavez's economic policies have 1 good idea in them for every 5 bad ones.

As one friend put it, "This guy is a pr!ck on top of an assh*le." ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm a free-marketeer, but no shit a capitalist magazine would be able to tear into a socialist. Jeeze, it's like laughing at how jet pilots make fun of crop dusters.
Swimmingpool
28-03-2005, 23:30
Of course socialists are going to tell you he's a good guy.


He's probably better than who the Venezuelan Right would like to see in power, but he's not the perfect social democrat that he is often portrayed as.
Drunk commies reborn
28-03-2005, 23:30
because venezuela is one of those place with essentially feudal land systems?
There simply has to be a better way than just taking entire farms and ranches away from people and giving it to others. Perhaps a good progressive system of taxation could be used to fund government projects to put the poor to work for decent living wages.

Just snatching land away discourages foreign investment and encourages citizens with money to take their wealth and leave the country.
Refused Party Program
28-03-2005, 23:32
Cause, you know, that makes it all better.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

Ain't communism fun?

This thread has fuck all to do with Communism.
Afghregastan
28-03-2005, 23:33
I miss my subscription to the Economist, they had endless fun lamenting his policies. They tore into him at every available opportunity.

Well if the economist is against him, we know he doesn't follow a hard-line corporate globalisation economic model, but I'm not sure that makes him a bad guy.

They were right to do it too, Chavez's economic policies have 1 good idea in them for every 5 bad ones.

I'd be interested in hearing about his bad ideas. I thought the oil-for-doctors exchange with Cuba was brilliant, as well as the literacy campaign. Could you give me some examples about what's so bad about this authoritarian that's won 9 elections before launching any 'censorship' programs?
Niini
28-03-2005, 23:34
Chavez is good guy? **laughs** Oh boy.

build schools, hospitals, roads etc... But what do I know...


I think he isn't stupid though. Doesn't he keep selling oil to Usa. He knows
'who' is better off happy ;)
Drunk commies reborn
28-03-2005, 23:36
build schools, hospitals, roads etc... But what do I know...


I think he isn't stupid though. Doesn't he keep selling oil to Usa. He knows
'who' is better off happy ;)
Oil is the only way he can keep funding his programs. He has no choice but to sell oil to the biggest buyer in the world. When that oil runs out, or alternate energy production becomes economical Venezuela's fucked. Anyone with investment money is fleeing the country as we speak. They will have no industry to fall back on.
Niccolo Medici
28-03-2005, 23:36
Don't get me wrong, I'm a free-marketeer, but no shit a capitalist magazine would be able to tear into a socialist. Jeeze, it's like laughing at how jet pilots make fun of crop dusters.

Yeah, I know. But they were GOOD at it. Really good. They hit all the right points, refrained from being too obvious about their dislike of the person, added numerous little pleas for a return to "proper" economic policies.

They did it well. Rather than simple barracks humor like my friend's comment about him, the Economist did it with style. They also seemed genuinely concerned with stuff like this article happening in the future.
Afghregastan
28-03-2005, 23:43
Yeah, I know. But they were GOOD at it. Really good. They hit all the right points, refrained from being too obvious about their dislike of the person, added numerous little pleas for a return to "proper" economic policies.

They did it well. Rather than simple barracks humor like my friend's comment about him, the Economist did it with style. They also seemed genuinely concerned with stuff like this article happening in the future.

Well, they're British, so -stereotyping aside- I think wit and style would be expected. I'm not sure whether style and making an appeal to the Economists authority makes for a compelling argument though. Any examples?
OceanDrive
28-03-2005, 23:43
I thought Chavez was a good guy, or that's what I've been told by multiple socialists http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5755-2005Mar27?language=printer

*Cliks LINK*
*starts reading*

I see...its not News..its just a Columnist.

*reads the authors name "Jackson Diehl"*
*Oh I see...its from that Diehl Moron !!!"

*stops reading*

Bookworms..next time I sujest you LINK to real NEWS, not editorialized Bu-ll-shite.
Niccolo Medici
28-03-2005, 23:48
Well, they're British, so -stereotyping aside- I think wit and style would be expected. I'm not sure whether style and making an appeal to the Economists authority makes for a compelling argument though. Any examples?

Examples eh? You're better off asking someone with a subscription to them.
:( After a recent move I don't have any of my old copies either. Very sorry, but I can't provide them myself.

Anyone else wanna help me out? I know there are some subscribers to them on this forum.
Andaluciae
28-03-2005, 23:55
I know that Mort Zuckerman did a piece on Chavez, and he hit on a lot of negative points. Things like Chavezes ban on banging pots as a symbol of protest (it's a traditional form of protest in Venezuela) to the constant seizing of land. These laws and the like only add more onto a record of questions about his free speech record. There are also concerns about the recall election, and all sorts of other things. I don't really find Chavez all that appealing, he's just another demagouge soon-to-be dictator.
Afghregastan
29-03-2005, 00:07
I know that Mort Zuckerman did a piece on Chavez, and he hit on a lot of negative points. Things like Chavezes ban on banging pots as a symbol of protest (it's a traditional form of protest in Venezuela) to the constant seizing of land. These laws and the like only add more onto a record of questions about his free speech record. There are also concerns about the recall election, and all sorts of other things. I don't really find Chavez all that appealing, he's just another demagouge soon-to-be dictator.

Kinda contradicts what I read in this article. (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=20&ItemID=7400) The stuff about his relationship to the media is near the end of the interview. Who is Mort Zuckerman? Is his name some sort of talisman, or can you link to the article?
Andaluciae
29-03-2005, 00:15
Kinda contradicts what I read in this article. (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=20&ItemID=7400) The stuff about his relationship to the media is near the end of the interview. Who is Mort Zuckerman? Is his name some sort of talisman, or can you link to the article?
Zuckerman (besides having one of the coolest names in the universe, he's up there with Jacques Chirac in the name coolness factor) is an Editor at US News and World Report. I only read it in text a while back, and cannot seem to find it around the room.
Afghregastan
29-03-2005, 00:26
Zuckerman (besides having one of the coolest names in the universe, he's up there with Jacques Chirac in the name coolness factor).....

Balthazar and Mordechai are up there on my kewl list. What is it about Semitic names?

...is an Editor at US News and World Report. I only read it in text a while back, and cannot seem to find it around the room.

Sound's like he has a kewl job, I'd like to read his article because I'm curious as to who his sources are. I mean, if it's just the GWB administration and ex-pat Venezualans I'll find it less than convincing.
Subterranean_Mole_Men
29-03-2005, 00:27
Chavez is an amusing character. It is hard to blame him for being undemocratic when his opponents have resorted to all manners of Coup attempts and revolts against him.

I saw an article somewhere the other day that he is buying a massive quantity or Russian weapons, something like 100,000 AK-47s. It looks like he is gearing up for something but we'll have to wait and see what though. He has been openly supportive of the FARC rebel army in Columbia, perhaps he will try to help them overthrow the government in Columbia and he will seek to install himself as the V. I. Lenin of South America. That will be a fun war to watch once the US gets tired of him.
Alien Born
29-03-2005, 00:35
He's a bit authoritrian for a social democract, He's just a hard line socalist really, yeah some of the stuff he dose is questionable but then again, as oposed to the rest of latin america he looks like a saint to me.

Which just shows how little you actualy know of Latin America. Chavez is a little over the top in his left wing policies, but he is also a democraticaly elected president who has twice won strictly observed referenda seeking to remove him from power before the end of his term.

Democracy is like that, you put the power in the hands of the masses and you have to accept what they decide.

Laws blocking freedom of the press on national security exist in all countries that I know of. What is "D" notice Scouserlande? (If you don't know, go and find out.)

The rest of South America, (I can't say anything about Central America, as I do not keep up with the political news from there) is also run on the basis of democracy. Some countries have bigger problems holding to this due to armed factions (Colombia specifically) but the rest are very European or USA like in the way the politics works. (i.e. a lot of talk, a lot of money and no results.)

What specifically were you referring to when you implied that the rest of Latin America does worse things than Chavez?
Andaluciae
29-03-2005, 00:35
Balthazar and Mordechai are up there on my kewl list. What is it about Semitic names?
Amusing, isn't it?



Sound's like he has a kewl job, I'd like to read his article because I'm curious as to who his sources are. I mean, if it's just the GWB administration and ex-pat Venezualans I'll find it less than convincing.
I don't remember exactly what the sources were, but they were neither of those organizations. There were several groups, but like I said, I read it two months ago, and haven't seen it since.
Great Beer and Food
29-03-2005, 00:59
Before any of you lay down a pampered first world opinion of Chavez, I think you should take a few years out of your life to live first hand as a destitute Venezuelan in abject poverty....might change your mind ever so slightly.....
Drunk commies reborn
29-03-2005, 01:02
Before any of you lay down a pampered first world opinion of Chavez, I think you should take a few years out of your life to live first hand as a destitute Venezuelan in abject poverty....might change your mind ever so slightly.....
My oldest friend is marrying a Venezuelan girl. She and her family absolutely hate Chavez. They say he's going to ruin the nation's economy in the long term, and he's censoring speech. Considering that her family still lives there, I'm going to take their word for it.
Afghregastan
29-03-2005, 01:06
Before any of you lay down a pampered first world opinion of Chavez, I think you should take a few years out of your life to live first hand as a destitute Venezuelan in abject poverty....might change your mind ever so slightly.....

Woo!! Hoo!! I've lived a (comparatively) privileged life. Therefore it's impossible for me to read, listen, debate and come to a reasoned opinion! Awesome, I don't need to think anymore, I'm going to go and watch TV now.

You idiotic twit.
Great Beer and Food
29-03-2005, 01:12
Woo!! Hoo!! I've lived a (comparatively) privileged life. Therefore it's impossible for me to read, listen, debate and come to a reasoned opinion! Awesome, I don't need to think anymore, I'm going to go and watch TV now.

You idiotic twit.

Yup, if I don't absolutely detest Chavez because YOU told me to, I'm just evil incarnate, aren't I.

You moronic, egotistical asshat.
Drunk commies reborn
29-03-2005, 01:13
Nice to see we're all getting along so well. It's like the UN in here.
Alien Born
29-03-2005, 01:15
My oldest friend is marrying a Venezuelan girl. She and her family absolutely hate Chavez. They say he's going to ruin the nation's economy in the long term, and he's censoring speech. Considering that her family still lives there, I'm going to take their word for it.

Chavez is a polemical figure in Venezuela. He has his followers, mostly from the unskilled labourers and poor, and he has his opponents, mostly from the monied middle classes. Neither side is realy capable of considering the opinions of the other. Asking one group if there was any reason behind the others position wouyld be like asking a Red Sox fan if the Yankees are a good team to support. No rational, reasoned reply will result. So, she and her family hate Chavez, just makes them members of one half of this dichotomy. They are not right, nor are they wrong. But no reasonable discussion can be had. (Try asking McCarthy if Marx had any good ideas). Take their word for it, fine, but be aware that their word is very biased.
Armed Bookworms
29-03-2005, 01:18
Bookworms..next time I sujest you LINK to real NEWS, not editorialized Bu-ll-shite.
Considering the important part of the article was the fact that said laws were passed at all, I don't give a shit who the author is. Since I doubt the author is completely blowing smoke out his ass about the laws being passed it's a perfectly valid source.
Great Beer and Food
29-03-2005, 01:20
Chavez is a polemical figure in Venezuela. He has his followers, mostly from the unskilled labourers and poor, and he has his opponents, mostly from the monied middle classes. Neither side is realy capable of considering the opinions of the other. Asking one group if there was any reason behind the others position wouyld be like asking a Red Sox fan if the Yankees are a good team to support. No rational, reasoned reply will result. So, she and her family hate Chavez, just makes them members of one half of this dichotomy. They are not right, nor are they wrong. But no reasonable discussion can be had. (Try asking McCarthy if Marx had any good ideas). Take their word for it, fine, but be aware that their word is very biased.

100% correct! :)

Too tough of a call for me to make without living the situation first hand.

But then again, I could just be a dumbass and sling my opinion around like a trained chimp throwing it's poo, but thats just not my style....
Alien Born
29-03-2005, 01:30
Considering the important part of the article was the fact that said laws were passed at all, I don't give a shit who the author is. Since I doubt the author is completely blowing smoke out his ass about the laws being passed it's a perfectly valid source.

What country does not have laws restricting freedom of the press where national security is concerned?

It may be that Chavez is using these laws in an unethical way, but that is another story, and one that would need confirmation. The existence of the laws though, should be no surprise to anyone, as the equivalent laws exist everywhere.
Afghregastan
29-03-2005, 01:31
Yup, if I don't absolutely detest Chavez because YOU told me to, I'm just evil incarnate, aren't I.

You moronic, egotistical asshat.


Please show me where I wrote anything negative about chavez.... Try to think every once in a while, it may hurt at first but it's worth while.
Great Beer and Food
29-03-2005, 01:33
Please show me where I wrote anything negative about chavez.... Try to think every once in a while, it may hurt at first but it's worth while.

Yes, good...attack me for no reason!

You need a release hon. I suggest masturbation.......
Afghregastan
29-03-2005, 01:37
But then again, I could just be a dumbass and sling my opinion around like a trained chimp throwing it's poo, but thats just not my style....

Really?
Armed Bookworms
29-03-2005, 01:38
What country does not have laws restricting freedom of the press where national security is concerned?
Start with Article 147: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light." That sanction, the code implies, applies to those who "disrespect" the president or his functionaries in private; "the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly."

There's more: Article 444 says that comments that "expose another person to contempt or public hatred" can bring a prison sentence of one to three years; Article 297a says that someone who "causes public panic or anxiety" with inaccurate reports can receive five years. Prosecutors are authorized to track down allegedly criminal inaccuracies not only in newspapers and electronic media, but also in e-mail and telephone communications. Where does it say nat. sec.? And of course, charges brought up using these articles are almost certain to be convictable given the vagueness of the wording.
Alien Born
29-03-2005, 01:38
Afghregastan and Great Beer and Food

Stop being childish the two of you.

Afghregastan, you took a general post made by Great beer and Food and replied to it with an insult as if it was a personal attack.

Great Beer and Food, you reacted to the insult with one of your own rather than making it clear that the position was general not personalised.
Andaluciae
29-03-2005, 01:41
I'm just trying to figure this out, GB&F, are you saying we cannot make a decision about what's going on in Venezuela because we aren't there, or are you saying something else. Because I'm getting the first thing out of you.
Afghregastan
29-03-2005, 01:43
Yes, good...attack me for no reason!

No reason? Let's see, here's a gem that got the whole ball rolling.

Yup, if I don't absolutely detest Chavez because YOU told me to, I'm just evil incarnate, aren't I.

So, yeah, no reason.
Alien Born
29-03-2005, 01:46
Where does it say nat. sec.? And of course, charges brought up using these articles are almost certain to be convictable given the vagueness of the wording.

Care to quote in the original Spanish for me and in its entirety. Translation can be notoriously fickle, particularly if you only selectively quote.
The second part you cite includes the phrase "causes public panic or anxiety", which I am sure you will find a similar phrase, with the same intent on the US and UK public security restriction order laws. The law regarding the disrespect of the president, is a law referring to the office, not the person. I am not arguing that such a law should exist, but you will find that such laws do exist almost everywhere. The UK certainly has laws wherein "disrespecting" the monarchy would be construed as treason and be punishable by death, not just a prison sentence (although this maximum punishment would not normaly be sought).

The US has no laws against disrespecting its executives? I am very surprised if this is true.

My personal opinion is that such laws are a farce. You should be able to satirise the powers that be all you want, but they do exist and they are used from time to time.
Great Beer and Food
29-03-2005, 01:48
Really?

Call me when you have a point, will you.
Armed Bookworms
29-03-2005, 01:50
The US has no laws against disrespecting its executives? I am very surprised if this is true.
You can't libel or slander them, and you can't make death threats against them, but you can disrespect them all you want in private and in public.
Andaluciae
29-03-2005, 01:50
Both of you, just chill, you'll only get this thread locked, or yourselves warned if you keep acting like this. Cool your jets kids.
Great Beer and Food
29-03-2005, 01:51
I'm just trying to figure this out, GB&F, are you saying we cannot make a decision about what's going on in Venezuela because we aren't there, or are you saying something else. Because I'm getting the first thing out of you.

I'm simply saying that outside opinions are never the same as those made by people actually living the situation. That's why I refrain from forming any concrete opinions on what goes on in other countries....because I don't live there.....
Afghregastan
29-03-2005, 01:51
About the so called censorship laws:

So, basically this law, the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, is to put some kind of control on sex and violence that can be shown during children's and family viewing hours. Once again the United States Dept. of State together with U.S. media and Venezuelan private media, have launched this massive campaign saying freedom of speech and expression is being stifled and the government is censoring the media. But that's absolutely absurd. You turn on any of the channels here and you'll see that there's more freedom of expression enjoyed in Venezuela than probably anywhere else in the world. It's the only place where they can go on television and talk about killing the president, or saying the most derogatory and offensive things on a news hour.


Full article here. (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=20&ItemID=7400)
Great Beer and Food
29-03-2005, 01:53
No reason? Let's see, here's a gem that got the whole ball rolling.



So, yeah, no reason.

I'm done if you are, but in future you might just want to watch who you flame first. I'm not your bitch.
Great Beer and Food
29-03-2005, 01:55
No reason? Let's see, here's a gem that got the whole ball rolling.



So, yeah, no reason.
And for your info, it was the little "twit" remark you made that started all of this.

Oh how charming it is when someone throws a stone and then hides his hand.....
Stop Banning Me Mods
29-03-2005, 01:56
Don't get me wrong, I'm a free-marketeer, but no shit a capitalist magazine would be able to tear into a socialist. Jeeze, it's like laughing at how jet pilots make fun of crop dusters.


I love how ignorant posters in this forum are of the successes of pure Socialist economies. Yugoslavia, for instance held a quality of life equal to that of most Western European countries, despite having been industrialized far later. North Korea, despite having an insane dictatorship, massive oppression and almost no oil, has been able to create a huge industrial complex, provide adequate housing for every person living there, and somehow feed a population that has 3 million people doing no valuable or necessary work (The military, but hey, the military is pretty much useless for anything but defense anyway eh?) Cuba, a third-world, non-industrial nation that lost the biggest export contract it had upon the U.S. embargo, still has one of the most productive economies in Latin America.

These countries have everything against them: Embargoes, dictators, threats of military intervention, yet despite all this they maintain at least decent economies. Lack of political freedoms restricts economic activity, this applies to all countries around the globe. North Korea being the most oppressive regime in the world, yet having decent economic activity speaks highly of socialism. Yugoslavians having incomes as high as Frenchmen despite Tito as their dictator is more proof of the high success of socialism in second and third world countries.
Andaluciae
29-03-2005, 01:57
I'm simply saying that outside opinions are never the same as those made by people actually living the situation. That's why I refrain from forming any concrete opinions on what goes on in other countries....because I don't live there.....
Alright, I understand now. I disagree with doing that. If you detach yourself from something by saying "I cannot know what is happening there because I don't live there" is, in my opinion, ignoring what facts we do have. We do know certain things about the situation, and I have heard the opinions of rabid pro-chavezists, and anti-chavezists, I've read articles and the like. I think that if I am informed, I can form an opinion.

In fact, to not take an opinion, is in my opinion apathetic. The exact same argument can condone genocide by saying "I don't know what caused it, so I cannot form an opinion."

Same goes for history, we weren't alive (for most NSers) during WWII, and the leadup to it. But we all have opinions on WWII.

Do you see my point?
Armed Bookworms
29-03-2005, 01:57
About the so called censorship laws:




Full article here. (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=20&ItemID=7400)
*sighs* none of the laws discussed in the article I posted are referenced by the article you posted. What is going on NOW goes way beyond FCC type censorship.
Armed Bookworms
29-03-2005, 01:59
I love how ignorant posters in this forum are of the successes of pure Socialist economies. Yugoslavia, for instance held a quality of life equal to that of most Western European countries, despite having been industrialized far later. North Korea, despite having an insane dictatorship, massive oppression and almost no oil, has been able to create a huge industrial complex, provide adequate housing for every person living there, and somehow feed a population that has 3 million people doing no valuable or necessary work (The military, but hey, the military is pretty much useless for anything but defense anyway eh?) Cuba, a third-world, non-industrial nation that lost the biggest export contract it had upon the U.S. embargo, still has one of the most productive economies in Latin America.

These countries have everything against them: Embargoes, dictators, threats of military intervention, yet despite all this they maintain at least decent economies. Lack of political freedoms restricts economic activity, this applies to all countries around the globe. North Korea being the most oppressive regime in the world, yet having decent economic activity speaks highly of socialism. Yugoslavians having incomes as high as Frenchmen despite Tito as their dictator is more proof of the high success of socialism in second and third world countries.

Ahem. http://www.techcentralstation.com/032805E.html
Afghregastan
29-03-2005, 02:01
I'm simply saying that outside opinions are never the same as those made by people actually living the situation. That's why I refrain from forming any concrete opinions on what goes on in other countries....because I don't live there.....

I wildly disagree. Any person can form opinions about other countries informed or not. What I will say is that someone living outside the country should be judicious (sp?) in their choices of information sources, keeping in mind that those sources may be pushing an ideological line. It's possible to form knee jerk reactionary opinions but they're about as valuable as the amount of thought that goes into them.
Great Beer and Food
29-03-2005, 02:02
Alright, I understand now. I disagree with doing that. If you detach yourself from something by saying "I cannot know what is happening there because I don't live there" is, in my opinion, ignoring what facts we do have. We do know certain things about the situation, and I have heard the opinions of rabid pro-chavezists, and anti-chavezists, I've read articles and the like. I think that if I am informed, I can form an opinion.

In fact, to not take an opinion, is in my opinion apathetic. The exact same argument can condone genocide by saying "I don't know what caused it, so I cannot form an opinion."

Same goes for history, we weren't alive (for most NSers) during WWII, and the leadup to it. But we all have opinions on WWII.

Do you see my point?

Yes, I do see your point. But even though I'm opposed to the Iraq war, I still can't tell Iraqi people that they're not better off with Saddam gone because I don't live the life of an ordinary Iraqi. Do you see my point?
Great Beer and Food
29-03-2005, 02:04
Ahem. http://www.techcentralstation.com/032805E.html

An opinionated article from a pro-freemarket website is hardly a non biased source.
Andaluciae
29-03-2005, 02:07
-snip-
*Gags and spits water everywhere.*

What? Yugoslavia having equal quality of life to western Europe? North Korea being able to feed it's population? A claim that the NKs created their industrial complex on their own? Ignoring the fact that the loss of the US sugar contracts in Cuba was picked up by the USSR?

Christ almighty.
I don't know if you haven't noticed, but Yugoslavia doesn't even exist anymore. Their products were crap, (ever heard of a car called the Yugo, kids?) and quality of life was nowhere near that of western Europe. Beyond that, their incomes were as high as frenchmen's because of enforced monetary trade value. The worth of the Yugoslavian money was artificially increased by the government setting exchange rates. As with east germany.

The NK industrial complex was built with a combination of factors, almost all of them being foreign, be it aid from the USSR, China, or whatever, the "iron triangle" was not built by Koreans, but by people from other countries. Beyond that, have you even read a humanitarian report in the last ten years? The people of North Korea are starving. The best food (which is not of that high of quality in the first place) is shuttled over to the soldiers. Leaving most people with crap food.

Cuba relies on a demagouge of a dictator, othewise the government would collapse if the personality cult of Castro were to go away. And a large portion of their economy is just spent fixing old stuff. All their cars are from the nineteen fifties.
Andaluciae
29-03-2005, 02:09
Go ireland!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4020523.stm
Stop Banning Me Mods
29-03-2005, 02:12
Ahem. http://www.techcentralstation.com/032805E.html


What are you trying to prove with that Bookworm? Maybe I was being unclear. Yugoslavia's economy was decimated by a civil war in the early 90's. Those statistics are not applicable to my aforementioned statement.
Great Beer and Food
29-03-2005, 02:13
Go ireland!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4020523.stm

I find it extremely interesting that the top 10 countries on that list voted to be "happiest" are also very socially progressive as well.
Andaluciae
29-03-2005, 02:15
I find it extremely interesting that the top 10 countries on that list voted to be "happiest" are also very socially progressive as well.
And they're all really small!

Population wise, that is.
Andaluciae
29-03-2005, 02:23
Well, I've got to go.
Afghregastan
29-03-2005, 02:24
Cuba relies on a demagouge of a dictator, othewise the government would collapse if the personality cult of Castro were to go away. And a large portion of their economy is just spent fixing old stuff. All their cars are from the nineteen fifties.

Cuba has been under a vicious economic embargo sponsored by the US for something like 40 years now, been subjected to a proxy invasion (Bay of Pigs) had swine fever introduced by the CIA and had their oil infrastructure blown up by US sponsored sabateurs, and yet they can engage still supply trained medical doctors and nurses to third world contries on a regular basis as well as providing free health care to their own population.

I'm not sure what's wrong with maintainence. It sounds like a viable way to ameliorate resource depletion and pollution from resource extraction. I have the feeling the built in obsolescence as a concept is anathema, that's a not bad thing.
Free Soviets
29-03-2005, 02:29
There simply has to be a better way than just taking entire farms and ranches away from people and giving it to others. Perhaps a good progressive system of taxation could be used to fund government projects to put the poor to work for decent living wages.

Just snatching land away discourages foreign investment and encourages citizens with money to take their wealth and leave the country.

1) the land that has been redistributed thus far has been entirely state-owned. (unless things have changed in the past month or so - i may have missed something)

2) the private land situation in venezuela is completely unjust and totally unjustifiable. a tiny elite owns the overwhelmingly vast majority of the land, got it through unjust means, and isn't even using most of it anyway.

chavez may be an authoritarian ass, but land redistribution is a moral imperative.
OceanDrive
29-03-2005, 04:14
...I don't give a shit who the author is....

If you are looking for the truth...you should care who the author is...

after all it is not the first time Diehl is spiting his poison at Chavez...

http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=419

Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Isn’t it fitting that Jackson Diehl uses a baseball metaphor in his August 2 “A Missile from the South,” which savages Venezuela’s President Chávez with surprising immoderacy. The author’s appraisal of that country’s political situation grossly “strikes out” due to its surfeit of flaws.
...
Diehl’s attempt to label Chávez as an ultra-leftwing populist leader distorts the Venezuelan president’s commitment to reforming the country’s long neglected institutions while reversing the chronic disregard for its impoverished majority. This poverty was not produced by Chávez, but has profoundly motivated him to address the nation’s protracted social conflicts. Economic set-backs, exemplified by last year’s opposition-orchestrated general strike, cost the country several billion dollars.
...
Diehl’s failure to spell out the anti-Chávez bloc’s continued controversial relationship with Washington further undermines his argument, leaving it one-sided and flawed.