Can Chavez get any more mental?

[sandinista]

[Coito ergo sum]

Don't know...haven't lived in too many countries.

Buying the Press
Documents reveal multimillion-dollar funding to journalists and media in Venezuela
http://www.zcommunications.org/buying-t ... -gollinger

Eva Golinger is the editor of the Correo del Orinoco International, a web- and print-based newspaper which is financially backed by the Venezuelan government, and Hugo Chavez calls her the Sweetheart of Venezuela. I'm sure that's because of her objective journalism. The Center for Public Integrity describes Golinger as "a writer at the pro-Chávez Web site, Venezuelanalysis.com. She was asked in 2003 by the Venezuela Information Office (VIO) to be the member of a "rapid response team to combat news articles and editorials critical of Chávez".

[sandinista]

Coming from the guy who quotes the Washington post?

In an article titled "Chavez's Censorship, Where 'Disrespect' Can Land You in Jail," published on March 28, Post columnist Jackson Diehl asserted that "beginning this month journalists or other independent activists accused by the government of the sort of offenses alleged by Izarra can be jailed without due process and sentenced to up to 30 years."

Izarra responded to the Diehl article in a letter sent to The Washington Post, accusing the columnist of lying, and The Post of being badly informed. "You are lying to your readers, Mister Diehl... because you are confusing the law that protects children from obscenity in the broadcast media with the laws on national security and the President's security, which are stricter in the United States," Izarra said.

http://www.zcommunications.org/venezuel ... cleto-sojo

[Coito ergo sum]

Coming from the guy who quotes the Washington post?

In an article titled "Chavez's Censorship, Where 'Disrespect' Can Land You in Jail," published on March 28, Post columnist Jackson Diehl asserted that "beginning this month journalists or other independent activists accused by the government of the sort of offenses alleged by Izarra can be jailed without due process and sentenced to up to 30 years."

Izarra responded to the Diehl article in a letter sent to The Washington Post, accusing the columnist of lying, and The Post of being badly informed. "You are lying to your readers, Mister Diehl... because you are confusing the law that protects children from obscenity in the broadcast media with the laws on national security and the President's security, which are stricter in the United States," Izarra said.

http://www.zcommunications.org/venezuel ... cleto-sojo

I quoted the law, and a fair reading of it does not admit to an interpretation that it "protects children from obscenity." The law made it illegal to say bad things about the President.

Irrespective of any bias, unless Diehl is just flat out inventing a provision of the law that doesn't exist, then the law says what it says. Laws are published. If Diehl has changed the wording of the article he QUOTED then it would be a simple matter to quote the correct article of the law. That should be easy enough, shouldn't it?

Frankly, Diehl is not on anybody's payroll, as far as I've heard, other than the Washington Post, which is a private enterprise, not controlled by the government. That's the same newspaper that blew the lid off of Watergate. Your source, however, is directly on the payroll of the Chavez government and openly joined a "rapid response team" to combat negative press about Chavez.

[sandinista]

I quoted the law

You never really did, you quoted the washington post "quoting" the law. Those wahington post articles have been thoroughly discredited.

“The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and The New York Times dedicated over 11,000 words in 14 op-eds or editorials to attacking Venezuela just in the last month. The Miami Herald alone published more than 15 op-eds and editorials in that same period.”

http://hcvanalysis.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... th-chavez/

the Washington Post, which is a private enterprise, not controlled by the government. That's the same newspaper that blew the lid off of Watergate.

There is no separation between the government and the mass media corporations. It's all one and the same. Same goes for most multinationals. CEO's and politicians are interchangeable. As for watergate...times have changed. I'm surprised you haven't noticed a change in the US media in the last several decades.

[Coito ergo sum]

I quoted the law

You never really did, you quoted the washington post "quoting" the law. Those wahington post articles have been thoroughly discredited.

The only way to really "discredit" the quote is to provide the real quote, if it's wrong. Quite simple, actually.

“The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and The New York Times dedicated over 11,000 words in 14 op-eds or editorials to attacking Venezuela just in the last month. The Miami Herald alone published more than 15 op-eds and editorials in that same period.”

http://hcvanalysis.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... th-chavez/

That doesn't "discredit" anything.

the Washington Post, which is a private enterprise, not controlled by the government. That's the same newspaper that blew the lid off of Watergate.

There is no separation between the government and the mass media corporations. It's all one and the same.

Vast overstatement. If that were true, you'd never have seen the complete pasting that GWBush got in his last 4 years in office. He didn't get a positive article for years.

Same goes for most multinationals. CEO's and politicians are interchangeable. As for watergate...times have changed. I'm surprised you haven't noticed a change in the US media in the last several decades.

If anything, the media is more pro-Administration now than it was 2 years ago, I will give you that. However, there is plenty of room for both pro and anti Chavez reporting to be done here in the States.

The bottom line is - we have a point on the table - Izzaro from Venezuela said that the Diehl confused a law designed to protect children from obscenity in the media with what Diehl described as a law prohibiting political speech. Diehl quoted the law. You say he's wrong. So quote the real law. What's the true wording? Diehl would have had to have basically made up an entire provision of the law, because what he quoted has nothing to do with protecting children. I'll certainly remain open to new information: so - what's the correct wording of the law?

[Toontown]

tick...tick...tick...tick

Q: how many commies does it take to quote a law?
A: none, because Sandinista and Pensioner have no intention of falling into your capitalist trap.

[Trolldor]

lol.

Capitalism is not the antithesis of communism, democracy is.

Try again.

[Rum]

lol.

Capitalism is not the antithesis of communism, democracy is.

Try again.

Not so really. Capitalism exploits labour and the ownership of means of production ultimately falls into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Communism, theoretically puts the ownership of the means of production into the hands of all the people.

Democracy can apply and work in theory in either social model and indeed it does in that in communist countries party members vote for their leaders. This voting system is rigged I hear you say.

Is it any more rigged than it is in our liberal democracies where are choice of who we put in charge is so narrow that it is effectively no choce at all.

[Trolldor]

Communism is a social thesis.

Capitalism is purely financial, and it is possible to have a Communist nation with capitalist enterprises.
China is a living, breathing example.

[sandinista]

Communism is a social thesis.

Capitalism is purely financial, and it is possible to have a Communist nation with capitalist enterprises.
China is a living, breathing example.

Capitalism is not the antithesis of communism, democracy is.

Communism is NOT the antithesis of "democracy". A communist society can be as democratic, if not more so, than a liberal democratic capitalist society.

[Trolldor]

No, it can't.
Communism can not survive in a democratic environment for the same reason religion can't. You must have dogma, and variation is apostasy.

[sandinista]

Not true.

[Trolldor]

Yes, true. You're applying a single standard - the state, collectivism - any differention is an individualism that communism can not afford.

[sandinista]

hmmm, I suppose under such a broad definition, "democracy" cannot survive under any economic system. Capitalism is also dogmatic in that it also applies a single standard; corporate interests (cash money), and profit motive. It would be chaos to change economic systems with every election (which I would guess could happen without "dogma"). Communism and capitalism are economic systems. I suppose the "amount" of "democracy" is what is questioned, since, with your definition, no economic system can exist side by side with "democracy" because of the economic rules of a given ideology. With this definition, I guess "law" would be dogma as well.