Chavez Is Dead...

[Matiasba]

He didnt closed it. What he did, is not to renew the contract that that tv channel had with the State. Period.


Since when is the president of a country put in charge of renewing the contract of TV stations ???...

since the state support them.

 

[jp]

ItsyBitsy - what would your recommendation be, if a hostile media monopoly spearheaded a coup to remove a democratically elected president because it served their financial interests?

 

[ItsyBits]

ItsyBitsy - what would your recommendation be, if a hostile media monopoly spearheaded a coup to remove a democratically elected president because it served their financial interests?

It this hypothetical, about Argentina or Venezuela?

 

[camberiu]

Its undeniable that life became less comfortable for millions of people during Chavez's time in office. Its also undeniable that life improved for millions living in poverty.

 

[jp]

It this hypothetical, about Argentina or Venezuela?

It happened. In Venezuela, in 2002.

 

[jp]

@camberiu - who mentioned compassion? I wouldn't want to challenge the wisdom of a wise and powerful magician such as Penn (from the popular TV show Penn & Teller), but most civilised nations work to reduce poverty for reasons which go beyond sentimentality.

 

[camberiu]

@camberiu - who mentioned compassion? I wouldn't want to challenge the wisdom of a wise and powerful magician such as Penn (from the popular TV show Penn & Teller), but most civilised nations work to reduce poverty for reasons which go beyond sentimentality.

Yeah right, for the folks for the rich nations of the north who support Chavez and his "fight against poverty", sentimentality has nothing to do with it.

 

[jp]

Believe it or not, there are actual social and economic benefits to reducing poverty. Its not all about mawkish liberals and their bleeding hearts.

 

[Matiasba]

About the press, this is where Chavez, CFK and most of the left wing like you on this continent is doing it all wrong. Even if the press have been reporting "wrong" before you cant just force them to report like you want them to. And neither can you have your own controlled press to report the way you want them to. Then you are no better then the forces that you try to fight. Public news need and must be better than that. They must investigate, report and write about anything without being pushed in any direction or having to fear anyone. They need to be independent. They work for the public and therefore reports equally critic about politicans(gov or opposition), private companies, judges, polices, military etc.

The same goes for rule of law. Chavez has during his years increased his own power as much as the parliament and independent institutions has lost power. Most scary is how the supreme court no longer seems to make a decision that is not already decided by Chavez or his ministers. This is a very dangerous path, cause the day the "wrong" person comes to power there are no democratic tools left to control that person with.

CFK is walking down a similar path. And when it comes to rule of law, check those indexes for Argentina and Venezuela.
Another example here in Argentina is the Supreme Court decision from 2008, Ley 23551, art. 41. that CFK has done nothing about.
For those who do not no what it is. It is a court ruling pretty much saying that the peronist CGT can no longer have its monopoly over wage bargaining. 5 years later CFK has not done anything about this ruling. CFK vs Rule of Law 1-0

well, excuse me but the supreme court is VERY independent in this country and that is one of the main achievements of this government, recognised by the oposicion as well. As an example, the "ley de medios" that was done legitimate with all the institutions, respecting every step, correctly, 3 years ago, and who knows why, the clarin group stopped it. The justice in this country is not k precisely, in fact is what now they are trying to change, "democratizar la justicia" because judges here have a lot of power and they are not tied to anything... they dont even pay taxes!!! they have a lot of (political) power.
It is independent, just listen Lorenzetti speech last week!!!

I dont know how it is in Venezuela, but i know its not like some people say that hes the owner of the country. He has a lot of opposition, the majority of the press just to start talking, and all the entire private sector, the multinationals that have a lot of power and employ thousand of people, the us embassy that has a lot of power in every country of this continent... venezuela had up to ten years ago like the 80% of their popultaion under the poverty line... being an oil producer country!!!!!!

about the press, its not like they have the total control of the situation, Chavez and Cristina have the three more important newspapers against them, and the same happens with the tv. The State is the main income the media have, is the main economic support, thats like this almost anywhere. So they are democratical since the moment they decided to invest money in a multimedia group that talks bullshit about them, and why this happen? because they govern for all the country, opposition minority included. Its their duty. If they dont invest as State in the more important media, they are making a mistake, but the problems begins when we talk of quantity. Then is when extortion begins, I publish some note, or I talk of corruption, if you dont give me this or that, and viceversa, I dont invest in "publicidad oficial" if you dont talk about this and that.
that is the relationship the private media has with the government.
What happened with Venezuela is that globovision was totally a part of the coup d etat against chavez in 2002, with the us and spain government (the only two countries that recognised the governement immediatly). they were authors.

About Chavez and his power, americans and european must learn about South America that we dont have tidy institutions like in your countries; we have personalisms, we have leaders, "caudillos", it has always been like this, ALWAYS, its like the vote gives the person the power to govern, to lead, and a lot of less limits that they would have in America or Europe. But this doesnt mean is no democracy, and doesnt mean we dont have institutions. And its not that didnt happen in europe (Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Tito, Salazar, etc)..., I think that the difference is culturally and we dont have a history of wars, we have not learned that lesson.
To make deep changes, to make lots of people to get educated and go out of poverty, inevitably, you have to be a bit authoritarian, to lead with the main companies, to manage with the concentrate economic power. You have to be authoritarian because everything is made to reproduce poverty, so the poors will never get education and they still continue voting for personalisms without institutions and the vicious circle.
So I understand that to make deep changes that this societies need, you have to be polemic, controversial with a lot of people, and you have to be strong, with a lot of power concentrated in no so many persons, just to establish the pillars of this change. And when the masses get educated, then we can talk of institutions, cause if not, institutions doesnt work, they reproduce poverty, they made houndred of thousand of people poor!!



thats my view.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

well, excuse me but the supreme court is VERY independent in this country and that is one of the main achievements of this government, recognised by the oposicion as well. As an example, the "ley de medios" that was done legitimate with all the institutions, respecting every step, correctly, 3 years ago, and who knows why, the clarin group stopped it. The justice in this country is not k precisely, in fact is what now they are trying to change, "democratizar la justicia" because judges here have a lot of power and they are not tied to anything... they dont even pay taxes!!! they have a lot of (political) power.
It is independent, just listen Lorenzetti speech las week!!!

I dont know how it is in Venezuela, but i know its not like some people say that hes the owner of the country. He has a lot of opposition, the majority of the press just to start talking, and all the entire private sector, the multinationals that have a lot of power and employ thousand of people, the us embassy that has a lot of power in every country of this continent... venezuela had up to ten years ago like the 80% of their popultaion under the poverty line... being an oil producer country!!!!!!

about the press, its not like they have the total control of the situation, Chavez and Cristina have the three more important newspapers against them, and the same happens with the tv. The State is the main income the media have, is the main economic support, thats like this almost anywhere. So they are democratical since the moment they decided to invest money in a multimedia group that talks bullshit about them, and why this happen? because they govern for all the country, opposition minority included. Its their duty. If they dont invest as State in the more important media, they are making a mistake, but the problems begins when we talk of quantity. Then is when extortion begins, I publish some note, or I talk of corruption, if you dont give me this or that, and viceversa, I dont invest in "publicidad oficial" if you dont talk about this and that.
that is the relationship the private media has with the government.
What happened with Venezuela is that globovision was totally a part of the coup d etat against chavez in 2002, with the us and spain government (the only two countries that recognised the governement immediatly). they were authors.

About Chavez and his power, americans and european must learn about South America that we dont have tidy institutions like in your countries; we have personalisms, we have leaders, "caudillos", it has always been like this, ALWAYS, its like the vote gives the person the power to govern, to lead, and a lot of less limits that they would have in America or Europe. But this doesnt mean is no democracy, and doesnt mean we dont have institutions. And its not that didnt happen in europe (Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Tito, Salazar, etc)..., I think that the difference is culturally and we dont have a history of wars, we have not learned the lesson.
To make deep changes, to make lots of people to get educated and go out of poverty, inevitably, you have to be a bit authoritarian, to lead with the main companies, to manage with the concentrate economic power. You have to be authoritarian because everything is made to reproduce poverty, so the poors will never get education and they still continue voting for personalisms without institutions and the vicious circle.
So I understand that to make deep changes that this societies need, you have to be polemic, controversial with a lot of people, and you have to be strong, with a lot of power concentrated in no so many persons, just to establish the pillars of this change. And when the masses get educated, then we can talk of institutions, cause if not, institutions doesnt work, they reproduce poverty, they made houndred of thousand of people poor!!



thats my view.

Actually, Peronism in general and Cristina in particular loathe the idea of an independent press.