Lemme just start by saying I respect Cindy Sheehan. I think her activism has given voice to hundreds of grieving military families who are enraged at the Bush Administration. My mom even went to visit Camp Casey over the summer and i printed the photos on the site. So it’s with a heavy heart that I’ve got to ask this question :
What the hell are you thinking?!
Getting cuddly with Hugo Chavez and thanking him for “supporting life and peace”? Do you know anything about Hugo Chavez other than the fact that he hates George Bush? Here’s an eye-opener from Human Rights Watch :
Amendments to Venezuela’s Criminal Code that entered into force last week may stifle press criticism of government authorities and restrict the public’s ability to monitor government actions, Human Rights Watch said today.“By broadening laws that punish disrespect for government authorities, the Venezuelan government has flouted international human rights principles that protect free expression,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “While countries across Latin America are moving to repeal such laws, Venezuela has enacted further restrictions on the press that will shield officials from public scrutiny.”
The amendments extend the scope of existing provisions that make it a criminal offense to insult or show disrespect for the president and other government authorities. Venezuela’s measures run counter to a continent-wide trend to repeal such “disrespect” (or “desacato”) laws. In recent years, Argentina, Costa Rica, Paraguay, and Peru have already repealed such laws, and other countries like Chile and Panama are currently considering legislation that would do so.
. . .
Anyone convicted of offending these authorities could go to prison for up to 20 months. Anyone who gravely offends the president, on the other hand, can incur a penalty of up to 40 months in prison.
In other words, if you went to Caracas and tried to do the exact same thing you did in Crawford, you’d be in jail right now.
And though I wouldn’t use the word “dictator” to describe Chavez, I can see why people would jump to that conclusion after power grabs like this :
The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez’s party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.
. . .
The law passed in May expanded the court from 20 to 32 members. In addition to the justices named to the 12 new seats, five justices were named to fill vacancies that had opened in recent months, and 32 more were named as reserve justices for the court. Members and allies of President Chávez’s Fifth Republic Movement (Movimiento V República, or MVR) form a majority in Congress.
. . .
The court-packing law signed in May also gave the governing coalition the power to remove judges from the Court without the two-thirds majority vote required under the constitution. In June, two justices retired after facing possible suspension from the Supreme Court as a result of these new provisions.The political takeover of the Supreme Court will compound the damage already done to judicial independence by policies pursued by the court itself. The Supreme Court, which has administrative control over the judiciary, has failed to provide security of tenure to 80 percent of the country’s judges. In March, the court summarily fired three judges after they had decided politically controversial cases.
For those of you who have the knee-jerk reaction of defending anyone described as “leftist”, just because Chavez helps the poor by providing cheap petroleum, sending doctors into the barrios, and setting up a market to provide partially-subsidized food, doesn’t change the fact that he’s acting like a despot. Harassment of political opponents and the slow crawl toward a one-party state are things I hate about George W. Bush and the Republican party, so I don’t see why Chavez should get a free pass.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:24 pm
I saw something like this on another site lately….or was it on some right wing printout that often finds its way in to the teacher’s lounge…..My point is that the right is mocking her for the same reasons as Greg. Hmmph.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:31 pm
OMFG how stupid can she be.
She has just destroyed practically everything she ever accomplished.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Hey Mrs Sheehan
The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. I love when Hugo sticks it to Bush but i wouldn’t say I necessarily admire the guy.
my .02
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Time to keep a sense of perspective. In Venezuela all major media outlets are owned by major corporations which are trying (with US support) to overthrow the government. It’s hard to imagine that far worse laws wouldn’t get passed in the US under such circumstances — just look at how simple opposition to the draft was criminalized during World War I.
Meanwhile, Franklin Delano Roosevent tried to expand this country’s Supreme Court too, filling it with more justices who support his New Deal legislation. Was he a dictator? Should we shun those who were seen with him?
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
the reason france opposed our actions in iraq had nothing to do with human rights or peace but rather thier own imperialist ambitions. none the less, they rightly opposed it. chavez similarly opposes the action in iraq has less to do with his concience (i think he’s showed using violence is a trick he will employ) and more with his oppostition to bush. none the less, he rightly opposes it. does it suck that some of the world leaders united in opposition to this war are not perfect? of course. should that stop the anti-war movement from making allies with powerful heads of state to build a coalition to end this war? hell, no.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Mr. Swartz,
Human Rights watch doesn’t just churn out reports based on AP crap. And changes to Venezualean law are hardly secret. Be careful who you tar with that brush.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:50 pm
What are you ralking about? I’m not saying HRW is wrong — I’m all for press freedom and judicial independence — I’m just saying these actions don’t make Chavez a dictator. Cindy Sheehan has nothing to be ashamed for, as far as I can tell.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Because most opinions in this country are formed by mere speculation, suggestion and the desire to be on the ‘right’ side, this is a horrible blunder. Having your photo taken with a man is one thing, but in a hug? Horrible political blunder.
If this picture is exploited, I would compare this picture to George W Bush holding hands, ’sunshine, lollipops and rainbows’ style, with Prince Abdullah. Link…
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushabdullahhands.htm
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I know quite a few Venezuelan expats, and while they all come from varied backgrounds, they all think Chavez is the country’s own despot. Which is exactly what I say when discussing U.S. policy with my European foreign friends. He’s got his own brand of evil incompentence going on.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I’m with Aaron on this one… and I respect HRW. Yes the laws against criticizing the gov’t are more severe but notice the use of the word “MAY” several times. Besides Telesur, the media is in the hands of the corporate fat cats and they do NOT like Chavez.
I can think of several similar situations in American history, starting with the Alien and Sedition Act, which did not engender any descriptions of “dictatorship”.
I’d rather see Cindy hugging Chavez than say Hosni Mubarak (20+ years of martial law), King Abdullah (either one), one of the Emirs of the Gulf states, King Mohammed VI, Islam Karimov or Pervez Musharraf, all of whom Bush has been happy to embrace.
Pax
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Uh, y’all should listen to Aaron Swartz a little more. The context of Chavez’s actions is extremely important.
This isn’t to say that he hasn’t made mistakes, but JESUS H CHRIST people, Rumsfeld compared him to HITLER this morning! Do you think it was because of his courtpacking or do you think it was because of his leftism and control of OIL?? Here’s a hint: Rumsfeld doesn’t give a CRAP about courtpacking in the US or elsewhere.
The US is really out to discredit Chavez entirely; we’ve already supported a coup, after all. Plus, as Aaron mentioned, the entire elites are arrayed against him while he enjoys huge support among the poor.
The Chavez question is complicated, but given all these circumstances, it doesn’t make sense for us on the US Left to join the rightwing chorus attacking him unless we’ve done a lot more research and analysis from a perspective that really takes a hemispheric-wide democratic perspective. In the long term of interests of democracy throughout the Americas, Chavez just isn’t the real problem right now.
All that said, Cindy Sheehan is a brave woman and a political idiot. Appearing with Chavez isn’t as bad as her speaking appearances with Ramsey Clark, but it shows an equal lack of political sense.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:19 pm
How does the percentage of judges in Venezuala appointed by Chavez compare to the percentage of federal judges in the US appointed by Bush?
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:27 pm
I’m in the middle here. I doubt Chavez would be doing these things if he hadn’t already been deposed by us once and then forced to hold a recall election (the results of which the opposition rejected, if I remember correctly). Especially considering the history of US interference in Central and South America. He’s facing a concerted US effort to get rid of him at many different levels, but especially in the Venezuelan media. I don’t blame him for being scared to death. If we do manage to follow the advice of Pat Robertson, who’s going to do a damn thing about us? Nobody. Chavez is basically on his own, and we made him that way.
That said, I think it’s a bad idea to use repression to fight this. He’d do better to fight the opposition media with favorable media.
That said, if one or two more Supreme Court justices leave before 2008, we may need some future Democratic president or Congress to expand the Supreme Court just to counteract its extremist rulings, especially if there is something like a presidential war crimes ruling on the horizon that they would be very likely to overturn based purely on politics.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Guys, those of you who are saying that clamping down on press freedom is ok because the press is in the hands of the corporations are traveling down a very dangerous path. Isn’t that a lot like those on the right who justify the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and other assorted assaults on the Bill of Rights on the basis that, under the circumstances, it’s worth it because the threat from the terrorists is so great? Some basic freedoms are universal and non-negotiable–anywhere. No matter how well intentioned the attacks on them–and I don’t think Chavez is particularly well intentioned in this case–they all lead to less democracy and freedom in the end, for rich and poor alike. We need to be consistent about that on the left, I think.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
wow. Americans really are incredibly ignorant of the politics of the rest of the hemisphere if this is in any way controversial.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:42 pm
No, I’m not happy that Chavez did this.
Will I immediately jump on any “anti-Chavez” bandwagon because of this? No.
Let’s just say that we disagree and leave it at that. Cindy Sheehan and all the rest at the World Social Forum probably hadn’t heard of these bills anyway. (I certainly hadn’t.)
To put it in perspective: Imagine if the anti-war movement had temporarily overthrown bush II, but loyal armed forces and pro-war mobs staged a successful counter-coup. What would press freedom and civil liberties be like in the USA? What would happen to the coup leaders?
Chavez has not become the devil. He’s always been problematic, but let’s register our complaints with some objectivity. What he’s done is wrong but it hasn’t totally discredited him.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:59 pm
I like Ms. Sheehan too, but gad what next? A photo op with Castro? She’s exercising very poor judgement giving the rightist character assassins the bullets.
PS: Glad for the comments section.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:00 pm
I’m not coming down on either side on the Chavez question, but I am a bit of a historian, so I have to answer the comment:
I can think of several similar situations in American history, starting with the Alien and Sedition Act, which did not engender any descriptions of “dictatorship”.
In fact, the Aliens and Sedition Acts (they were two seperate, lined pieces of legislation) engendered a lot of comments about dictatorship–though, at the time, it was referred to more in a “monarchist” context. Adams was attacked and hated (even by some Federalists) and a campaign reacting to the A&SA (among other “monarchist” issues) was instrumental in his defeat by Thomas Jefferson. They were by no means the only contributions to that defeat (Hamilton’s hatred of Adams was also important), but bad reaction against them was crucial.
Sorry, this is one of my hot buttons. I hate it when people on either the right or the left miscite American history for their own side. (For example, the Founding Fathers were not all deists/atheists/whatever, but neither were they all God-fearing Chrisitians.)
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:03 pm
I recommend the documentary, ‘The Revolution will not be Televised’, about the U.S. triggered coup attempt. In it, we see Chavez, telling everyone to believe in constitutional law, talking directly with the people, willing to go into the custody of the opposition to prevent violence, while massive lies were spread in the media.
I can understand the urge to shut those people up who instigated that, and when they took over, they dissolved the entire congress, which is a lot worse than packing the supreme court. The u.s. wants to overthrow him, he has good reason to be paranoid. Venezuela could quickly turn into haiti.
This is an excellent chance to think about how neat it would be if Jeb Bartlett were president, how soft power could be used to de-escalate situations, and how the current american administration is polarizing the entire world with it’s oversimiplifications and enemies lists.
Wouldn’t it be something if America went around the world advising leaders on how to set up durable institutions that were resistant to despotism, instead of scaring states into it? The way we’re going about it now is driving everyone into a world where the best we can hope for from leaders is Mao’s accomlishments, (70% good/30% bad, the chinese shout in unison), where liberty is quaint because everyone is watching their ass and fighting over food.
It might be inevitible though, we have spent too much on weapons and too little on science for too long, while this place has gotten so crowded it’s difficult to get any roomful of people to share ideas without riot. (unless there is a comedian present with lots of dick jokes or everyone is in the military, often both are required)
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Not only did Rummy compare Chavez to the “legally-elected Hitler” (how ironic is THAT coming from Prince-o-Peace Rumsfeld?), but the U.S.’s very own Spokesman for God Pat Robertson has, once again, stated he thinks Chavez should be offed. Doesn’t Chavez have a right to be just a teensy bit nervous? Hell, if I had been at that conference, I would have hugged him, too, just to prove that not all Americans are out to kill him.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:05 pm
There are good things and bad things about Chavez. That’s not really the point. The fact is that Sheehan has handed the right and the MSM a perfect weapon to discredit and marginalize her, and by extension, her absolutely correct arguments about the war. How she feels about Chavez’s regime or any other is her business, but this seems tragic.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:06 pm
I think if I were in Chavez’s position I would not think that the measures he has taken are unreasonable. The labor and economic systems that developed in Latin America are entirely different than that which developed in the United States. The system of peonage and the encomienda have resulted in the concentration of wealth into the hands of very few individuals, at the expense of the masses. Due to this, it is simply not possible for what we consider to be “normal democracy” to function in an effective manner. Perhaps sometime in the future it might, but in order for that to happen, we must let the current leaders follow their course. The prime target of the measures Chavez has taken are the extreme wealthy, who only desire to keep their wealth and regain control at the expense of the suffering masses.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Two things :
1) Don’t confuse this post as an endorsement in any way of Rumsfeld’s childish comments or Pat Roberton’s latest bloodthirsty daydreaming. Those guys are fucking morons.
2) What James said.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:17 pm
I respect Cindy Sheehan, and her courage. Unfortunately, she often sticks her foot in her mouth. I think she needs to learn a thing or two about PR.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:20 pm
I hear Chavez can appear in public and is cheered…can GW do that ?
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:25 pm
I have no quarrel with most populism or leftists. I also think that the leftist trend in South America holds almost zero potential for harm to the United States. Ordinarily, then, I would be pretty much agreeable to Chavez, what he represents, and is trying to accomplish.
But…
What I don’t like is what I see as an increasing reliance on denunciation of the United States to keep his public together. Yes, I know the Bush Administration tried to topple him, but there is a constant drumbeat of fifth columnist accusations and the like issuing from Caracas. More than seems rational.
Chavez’s recent cozying up to Mugabe, is what dissolved much of the benefit of the doubt I’d held about everybody’s favorite Venezuelan president, though. Since I have no inside information, I have to take all this at face value, and I don’t like what I see in Chavez now. It seems likely (though by no means certain) that he’ll be as bad for his people as his real and imagined enemies are-only with a leftist socioeconomical flavor.
Sheehan did herself - and all of us who are in dissent in the United States - a grave disservice when she stood there with Chavez.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Sheesh, I can already picture the next five dozen Mallard Fillmore strips that will hammer this to death.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Chavez through Venezualan owned Citgo gas stations are giving US public gas at a discount, as humanitarian aid. Check out the prices in your area of Citgo vs everyone else.
What a monster!
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:45 pm
>I recommend the documentary, ‘The Revolution will not be Televised’, about the U.S. triggered coup attempt. In it, we see Chavez, telling everyone to believe in constitutional law, talking directly with the people, willing to go into the custody of the opposition to prevent violence, while massive lies were spread in the media.
I second that recommendation for the same reasons.
Also, I recommend Richard Gott’s political biography of Chavez, Hugo Chavez.
Sure, Chavez is a complicated, somewhat messy figure. And, sure, Chavez has said some stupid stuff. But…he’s not what the NY Times protrays him as, a petty dictator. And, he’s not Castro. I have a _lot_ more respect for him than I do many US political figures and, in general, I think he’s worth supporting. Shame on the left for buying into Bush’s image of Chavez.
Was Sheehan smart to dilute her message by visiting Chavez? Yes. Was she outright wrong in visit Chavez? No.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Ooops, typos above. Should read:
Was Sheehan smart to dilute her message by visiting Chavez? No. Was she outright wrong in visiting Chavez? No.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:58 pm
I saw this same sentiment expressed last night on the Daily Show. My reaction then was the same as when I read this blog post: it looks very much like the thing American Democrats are worried about isn’t stifled Venezualan editorialists or Cindy Sheenan’s political naivité, it’s what kind of political hay their Republican opponents are going to make out of this. So they are now rushing to distance themselves from Cindy and her political incorrectness.
So what? they tell us. Chavez gives poor people fuel, medical care and food — actual necessities of life. Big deal. He stifles internal dissent and that’s a sure-fire bell-ringer in a U.S. election campaign. That trumps it.
Of course, we COULD discuss WHY the man stifles dissent. He did, after all, just survive a coup attempt by the skin of his teeth — a coup which showed evidence of U.S. covert support and a coup which was openly supported at the time by the U.S. administration statements. Gee, why would he get antsy about internal criticism and dissent? Because he knows if he runs a free and open game, the U.S. will have his head on a pike within six months and some puppet dictator will be grinding Venezuala under his boot with the utter silence of the US administration and media? Hmmm… d’ja think?
Best not to think. Best to just keep our hands clean for the upcoming election, which we hope will improve our Democrat standing. So we throw Cindy away as quickly as we picked her up when she was a convenient rallying tool. Similarly, we’ll just set as nought the actual good Hugo Chavez does because he’s mean to political cartoonists.
I guess by feeling that Mr. Tomorrow’s and Mr. Stewart’s vociferous condemnation reeks of opportunism, I place myself on the “knee-jerk liberal” list? Very well. It’s either that or spend more time trying to point out that the US government has its own very real and very effective means of stifling internal dissent, while at the same time NOT providing fuel, med care and food to its poorest citizens and that would just be tiresome of me.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Am I afraid of Mallard Fillmore? No!
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Shame on you for assuming my opposition to Chavez represents “buying in” to anything the Bush Administration has to say. I’m motivated by my love of free, open, democratic societies. I’m not going to throw away my principles and become an apologist for someone who is making his country more repressive just because I also hate what the President and his GOP cronies are doing to this country.
The very notion that I would “buy in” to Bush’s propaganda assumes I give a damn what he says, which I don’t.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:04 pm
The right’s reaction to Sheehan is foreordained. Whether Sheehan’s photo op is a PR disaster or not depends on the reponse of the rest of us. If you mumble and turn your back on her because she dared express solidarity with Chavez, they’ll have won the day, again. If, on the other hand, we use the controversy to underscore the difference between Bush’s brand of fascism and Chavez’s populism, we can win. We just need the courage to say with moral conviction that Chavez’s dictatorial moves are a response to US imperialism and are more than outweighed by his real commitment to the disenfranchised poor. So he put the clams on the major rightwing media outlets in Venezuela–I think openly muzzling the corporate media in the US would have great pragmatic results (though it would go against my principles).
Bottom line: let’s quit bringing knives (our universal principles) to the gunfight (flat out battle for real democracy).
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Just for the record, this post was written my “Mr. Saunders”, but you can just call me Greg. Tom’s got more important things to do than take the blame for the things I write.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Cindy Sheehan is required to have the wisdom of a Solomon.
But Bush is incapable of forming a grammatically proper sentence. The way he speaks when representing our nation, if you met him on the street you would think he’s mildly retarded.
Get ready for another dose of objective “liberal” media coverage.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:12 pm
This was a big mistake on Sheehan’s part. I have total and utter respect for what she’s doing, but she still needs to watch the company she keeps.
Not that I can talk much, I am guilty of liking Hugo Chavez at one time myself. Well, what can I say? It’s hard not to get excited when you hear about a country that has a truly leftist leader. Those are extremely rare, and those that do come to power usually become authoritarian right-wingers in a matter of years. Chavez is far from that point, but his level of control is far from comforting as well.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Why are so many people justifying his dictatorial behavior?
Are there aspects of his behavior that should be applauded? Sure.
Does the US government have allies that are way, way worse than him? You bet we do.
Did the US government act unethically in the anti-democratic way they dealt with Venezuela? Of course.
Am I starting to sound like Rumsfeld? Absolutely.
Would we jump down Bush’s throat if he did the exact same thing? You bet your ass we would. And for good reason.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Two points:
One, Chavez’ limiting of any freedoms is both unfortunate and entirely predictable. One of the key components of any US (or other powerful state’s) attempt to ostracize and destabilize a weaker state is to provoke acts of opposition, sabotage, and subversion in order to provoke a response that can be used to justify further action. This doesn’t excuse any crackdown, but the dilemma is real.
Two, who cares who Cindy Sheehan gets her picture taken with? It shouldn’t matter if she marries Chavez (or Islam Karimov); “her” message won’t be diluted or strengthened by her actions. We have a tendency to personalize ideas, policies, and issues in a way that gives the politics of defamation an easy target. The ideas we associate with inevitably flawed people won’t survive unless we can each articulate, enact and keep alive those principles ourselves, on an individual basis.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:27 pm
You really think that? At what point are dictatorial moves not outweighed by his commitment to the poor? I’ve got Venezuelan relatives that consider themselves socialists in the British mold who hate Chavez as much as they hate George Bush. Sure, Chavez has helped the poor, but to the Venezuelans I’ve spoken to, it’s driven as much by political cynicism as benevolence. Just like the GOP knows that the key to electoral dominance is kissing religious ass on even-numbered years, I have a feeling Chavez knows exactly who he has to keep happy if he wants to stay in power.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:33 pm
A thug who agrees with you 90% of the time is still a thug. Maybe Chavez is working diligently to build a new Eden in South America but that doesn’t mean his means are justified. Yeah, maybe we murdered the Indians, arrested and imprisoned dissenters at various points in our history and tolerated Jim Crow for 100 years. That doesn’t mean it was right for us then and it’s not right somewhere else now.
All of the defenses I’ve read of Chavez here sound like Rumsfeld defending the looting in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad — “This is what democracy looks like. It’s messy.”
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Dear Tom,
I’m a trolly troll troll.
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:37 pm
And what does “Bottom line: let’s quit bringing knives (our universal principles) to the gunfight (flat out battle for real democracy)” mean?
What’s the difference between that and what the Bushies do?
What if I were to say that “Bush’s dictatorial moves are a response to Middle Eastern terrorism and are more than outweighed by his real commitment to the oppressed people of the world”?
How can we have “real democracy” and abandon “universal principles”. For example, can we have “real democracy” without the principle of “one person, one vote”? Or “freedom of religion”? Or “nobody has a right to own another person”?
I don’t mean to make Chavez out to be The Devil. He’s an angel compared to our “good buddies” running Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, China, etc. etc. etc…but I don’t see how many of his recent actions reflect “real democracy”
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:44 pm
On other thing to consider - the right would vilify Cindy Sheehan if she became a nun. It doesn’t matter what she does.
What matters is what we do.
If we pull out the long knives and shred her for this, we do Rove’s work for him. They already hate Chavez, they already hate Sheehan. Virtually no one else in this country could give a rats ass about Chavez, and if the Roves of the world want to hold up pictures of her kissing Chavez, it’s only a big deal if WE make it a big deal. Otherwise, this is a wonk fight, and Rove knows it - he knows that before he can discredit Cindy Sheehan with these photos, he has to explain who the F Chavez is, and by the time you’re finished explaining, nobody is paying attention.
The best political reaction to this is to shrug your shoulders and say big deal, so what, and then quietly take Cindy by the hand and say look, you’d do well not to go pulling any more John Kerry Windsurfing photos.
I’m sorry to see these photos published by our side. How many pictures of Bush and Abramoff do you think will ever appear on LGF or Michelle Malkin’s site, should any such pictures ever come out? How much space do you suppose Assrocket will devote to excoriating Bush for having his photo taken with Abramoff?
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Hey all, it’s Friday evening and I’ve been planning to draw the curtain on comments week, but I hate to shut down a lively discussion in the middle, so I’ll leave the lights on a bit longer, but maybe everybody should think about continuing this one over at Greg’s site?
www.thetalentshow.org
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:58 pm
I know quite a few Venezuelan expats, and while they all come from varied backgrounds, they all think Chavez is the country’s own despot.
Most Venezuelan ex-pats, especially of the last few years, are well-to-do. These guys hate Chávez. There is little reason to think that Chávez helping the poor is through political cynicism — the guy is now politically very powerful in Venezuela, and could stop some of those programs if he wanted to do so without hurting his political standing. The poor in Venezuela love Chávez because he is one of them, partly because of his programs, partly because of the dark color of his skin. Black/white racism is alive and well in Latin America.
Having said this, while I shan’t say the guy is a dictator, because he is not, and while we do need to keep in mind that his opposition openly broadcasts anti-Chávez editorials, we should condemn him for the press restrictions, because they do little to hurt the anti-Chávez press (and let’s not kid ourselves here — whatever one thinks of Chávez, his opposition is awful), they hurt the very folks whom Chávez professes to help. These are folks who keep a copy of the Venezuelan costitution because of hos its changes empowered them, and they need to be able to monor the government themselves. We also need to remember that such tyrrany can happen in a democracy — Google Pat Boone’s comments about censorship in the Washington Times sometime.
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:02 pm
This discussion is very valid, and is more informative and thoughtful than any discussion in the conventional media on the subject. I wish people would read things like these posts instead of canned interviews on NPR or worse, anything on 24 hour news, evening news, or newspapers.
Stepping back a little, it is amazing to me how even someone as simple as Cindy must be percieved as making a summary statement about Chavez for a meet and greet photo op.
Is it possible for us anymore to include nuances in our views, like that she might agree with Chavez about Bush and the war AND SIMULTANEOUSLY disapprove of his steps against freedom of the press?
Why could I imagine the BBC being capable of such a distinction, while I could never in my wildest dreams imagine contemporary American mass media institution that would even attempt to convey such significant details?
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:15 pm
I like Chavez and in general I like what he is trying to do in Venezuela. Much of the negative things being pointed out here cannot be taken out of the context of a South American nation with a history of interference by the U.S. and now under direct threat by the U.S. in a variety of ways. We pay a virulent opposition to create havoc and even arrange a coup that fails. We have soldiers and mercenaries involved in incursions along their borders. These kinds of things are bound to cause the reaction you are condemning in any country. It’s easy to sit back and project civil libertarian values and make condemnations but to do so out of the context of a U.S imposed reality is naive.
If we want progess and democracy to flourish in Venezuela, we need to do what we can to call of the dogs of imperialism that threaten it, not condemn defensive measures, right or wrong, on the part of the threatened.
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:25 pm
umm, SockPuppet, Tom didn’t write the post. Greg did. It’s Friday. Have a beer. Calm down.
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Cindy Sheehan is not a politician. Period. She is a bereaved mother and an anti-war activist. Her life and her actions revolve on this axis. She has probably heard and read a little about Chavez, but it’s very likely, given her cause, that she has focused more on his anti-war rhetoric than his policies, his court-packing, or even the US supported coup. As far as she is concerned, he opposes the war, so he is on her side.
Is she naive? Yes, okay. Her goals are pretty simple - she just wants the US out of Iraq, she wants the soldiers home. So Chavez invites her over, expresses sympathy and solidarity, gives her a hug, and takes a picture.
Is this fodder for the right’s arsenal? You bet it is. But I ask you - what action of any left leaning American has not provided fodder for the rabid freepi in the last five, nay fifteen years? Anyone? Anyone?
Are those crickets I hear?
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:30 pm
The comentary is interesting. I also think Saunders post and the Daily Show segment were worthy of Crossfire reductivism.
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:33 pm
I don’t care for Chavez’s recent legal moves, or the court-packing.
However, Chavez faces a Bush administration that wants him overthrown or dead, and the owners of the major opposition press were implicated in the coup. Despite this, most of the media remains in opposition hands. It is far from a dictatorship.
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:34 pm
This piece is ridiculous. If Sheehan can’t hug Chavez because of some bad law or other, she can’t hug any leader almost anywhere in the world.
Look at almost any country in the yearly reports from HRW and you’ll find abuses or questionable laws, usually far worse than those listed for Venezuela. They happen everywhere. And notice it says the same kinds of laws are on the books in many other Latin American countries, and nobody claims their president is a “dictator” or a “despot” for it, or can’t be hugged or admired for other reasons.
I don’t agree with the vague wording of the media law, which could allow abuses, but the report does (as other’s have pointed out) just say “may…this”, “may…that”. There are no journalists in prison in Venezuela and most of the media there is virulently hostile to Chavez.
This all means the claim that “if you went to Caracas and tried to do the exact same thing you did in Crawford, you’d be in jail right now”….is just flat out nonsense, absurd. People in Caracas do far more than that all the time.
And there is nothing inherently wrong with expanding the Supreme Court. It needs to be done sometimes, and there are arguments for why it needs to be done in Venezuela. There’s another side to the story which you ignore. FDR was accused of being a “despot” on very similar grounds. Does someone who hugged FDR therefore lose “credibility”? Come on.
Now on to why someone might hug Chavez. He’s been elected by wide majorities. He’s started trying to use the oil wealth of his country to help the poor there (which make up the large majority). He’s expanded education and literacy programs to areas that have never seen them. Same with health care, for people who have never seen doctors.
He’s also providing an example for the people of other nations that they can reject the neoliberal economics imposed by Washington, and elect their own leaders to try a different path. And he’s helped to spark a democratic movement from below in Latin America which is helping indigenous leaders like Evo Morales in Bolivia become the first non-white President in the majority non-white country.
But no, you she can’t hug him because there’s this bad media law, so he’s a “despot”..etc.
Come on! Leave the dubious smears of Chavez to the right wing websites.
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:34 pm
And I thank you all for partaking in my little experiment. This particular conversation can be continued at Greg’s place, but I’m turning off the lights here.
http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/002310.html