Hugo Chavez dies aged 58

[tazzietiger]

Hugo Chavez has passed away after his battle with cancer.

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has died aged 58, after 14 years in power.
Mr Chavez had been seriously ill with cancer for more than a year, undergoing several operations in Cuba, and had not been seen in public for several months.
Vice-President Nicolas Maduro made the announcement on Tuesday, flanked by political and military leaders.
The government said Mr Chavez's body would lie in state until Friday, when his funeral would be held. Seven days of mourning were also declared.
According to the constitution, the President of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, will take over as interim president until an election can be held.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053

 

[placebo]

Good riddance.

 

[Todman]

Good things come to those who wait.

 

[Tasmaniac]

Will be interesting to see what happens next, I think they're supposed to have fresh elections within one month.

Will Chavez's designated successor win those?

How much of Chavez's platform will they keep on with?

 

[Dont be a lemon]

He did well.

So-called crimes/poor ethics alleged against him were the same as most Presidents and Prime Ministers of the world do.

But he disliked America's foreign policies and was solidly left wing so that made him a particular kind of arseh*le...

 

[medusala]

So-called crimes/poor ethics alleged against him were the same as most Presidents and Prime Ministers of the world do.

Most presidents / prime ministers have attempted to take power via a coup?

He did well.

Did he legalise gay marriage?

 

[LouisCK]

His legacy in South America will be a great one. Helped pioneer the anti-American, pro-socialist movement that has spread across the continent.

 

[Iason]

His legacy in South America will be a great one. Helped pioneer the anti-American, pro-socialist movement that has spread across the continent.

And yet we were Venezuela's biggest and most important trade partner throughout that time. He'd be a lot more credible if he actually followed through on his threats not to sell us oil, pero el negocio es el negocio.

His wasteful spending (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/us-venezuela-chavez-fund-idUSBRE88P0N020120926), failure to diversify the Venezuelan economy, the rampant inflation, the frequent food crises, the soaring crime rate in Caracas and his constant attempts to stifle opposing opinion by trying to eliminate Globovision and RCTV, that will be his legacy. Oh, and his red beret.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Most presidents / prime ministers have attempted to take power via a coup?

The events of 1992 are interesting but not pertinent to his time as democratically elected President from 1999-2013.

Did he legalise gay marriage?

Sadly not.

 

[LouisCK]

Most presidents / prime ministers have attempted to take power via a coup?

The American Founding Fathers were a bunch of left wing student protesters and terrorists who took power via coup/war.

Not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Iason]

The American Founding Fathers were a bunch of left wing student protesters and terrorists who took power via coup/war.

Not necessarily a bad thing.

And here I thought they were a bunch of rich white property and slave owners who didn't want to pay taxes. None of the founding fathers were students at the time either.

 

[LouisCK]

And here I thought they were a bunch of rich white property and slave owners who didn't want to pay taxes. None of the founding fathers were students at the time either.

A great deal of their theory/motive was founded at Harvard University.

Many of them owned slaves, as did many Americans at the time. They didn't want taxation without representation, they resented the ruling class and believed in democratic principles, nor did they believe in using the bible as a basis for government, and they HATED cartel's and corporations... they were pinko's and considered far more "extreme" at the time than Chavez ever was.

 

[Iason]

A great deal of their theory/motive was founded at Harvard University.

Many of them owned slaves, as did many Americans at the time. They didn't want taxation without representation, they resented the ruling class and believed in democratic principles, nor did they believe in using the bible as a basis for government, and they HATED cartel's and corporations... they were pinko's and considered far more "extreme" at the time than Chavez ever was.

-So they weren't students at the time. Got it.
-They resented the ruling class so much that they became the new ruling class after the revolution. They were merchants, physicians, plantation owners, most were trained lawyers, some acted as judges.
-Its a shame those democratic principles didn't extend to the poor, as the first Articles of Confederation limit the movement and rights of "paupers" and "vagabonds".

Stop trying to make these men something that they aren't to prove a point. They revolted, something that both the Americans and Chavez did, they took power, something that the Americans did and Chavez failed to do, and that is it.

 

[LouisCK]

-So they weren't students at the time. Got it.
-They resented the ruling class so much that they became the new ruling class after the revolution. They were merchants, physicians, plantation owners, most were trained lawyers, some acted as judges.
-Its a shame those democratic principles didn't extend to the poor, as the first Articles of Confederation limit the movement and rights of "paupers" and "vagabonds".

Stop trying to make these men something that they aren't to prove a point. They revolted, something that both the Americans and Chavez did, they took power, something that the Americans did and Chavez failed to do, and that is it.

Stop trying to avoid the point by pretending you've shut it down without actually providing any evidence contrary to my point.

Or don't, stay stupid. Could care less.

 

[Iason]

Stop trying to avoid the point by pretending you've shut it down without actually providing any evidence contrary to my point.

Or don't, stay stupid. Could care less.

That is adorable. Thanks for playing!

 

[LouisCK]

That is adorable. Thanks for playing!

I'll take an easy win every time brah.

 

[blackcat]

an oil tanker just went down in the Gulf of Mexico, the Ex-hugo Chavez

 

[OldBlueFan]

And yet we were Venezuela's biggest and most important trade partner throughout that time. He'd be a lot more credible if he actually followed through on his threats not to sell us oil, pero el negocio es el negocio.

No mention of the fact that a healthy percentage of the oil sales are for heating oil for the people left behind by US government policies?

His wasteful spending (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/us-venezuela-chavez-fund-idUSBRE88P0N020120926), failure to diversify the Venezuelan economy, the rampant inflation, the frequent food crises, the soaring crime rate in Caracas and his constant attempts to stifle opposing opinion by trying to eliminate Globovision and RCTV, that will be his legacy. Oh, and his red beret.

All western propagandistic talking points ...

An economy that's growing, a political system that is becoming even more democratic and decentralised. Consistent and successful efforts to raise food production. And a media that is able - and more importantly WILLING - to criticise government policy far more than you'll EVER hear in the US media.

His legacy will be the catalyst that saw the dismantling of US oppression throughout Latin America and the empowerment of those who'd known neither freedom nor democracy for 500 odd years.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

And a media that is able - and more importantly WILLING - to criticise government policy far more than you'll EVER hear in the US media.

I must have missed where the US mandated the broadcast of propaganda speeches by the President and launched administrative investigations of Fox News.

 

[Iason]

No mention of the fact that a healthy percentage of the oil sales are for heating oil for the people left behind by US government policies?



All western propagandistic talking points ...

An economy that's growing, a political system that is becoming even more democratic and decentralised. Consistent and successful efforts to raise food production. And a media that is able - and more importantly WILLING - to criticise government policy far more than you'll EVER hear in the US media.

His legacy will be the catalyst that saw the dismantling of US oppression throughout Latin America and the empowerment of those who'd known neither freedom nor democracy for 500 odd years.

-Well then I take everything I said back. He is the bestest.
-http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/02/20132153131413961.html
Al Jazeera. Those Western bastards.
-Hahahahaahahahahaahahahhaahahhahaha. Hahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhaa. Fox News now and CNBC and CNN during the Dubya years were and are about as scathing as you can get, and they are still allowed to operate with impunity. What Chavez did to RCTV and tried to do to Globovision are downright criminal actions.
-I thought that was Castro that did that already?

Maduro will probably win the election since emotions are running high, but after his term, you'll see the end of Chavismo.

 

[OldBlueFan]

I must have missed where the US mandated the broadcast of propaganda speeches by the President and launched administrative investigations of Fox News.

When was the last time a US news service actively participated in a coup attempt and disruption of the country's most important industry?

Why would you have to "mandate" anything when the media wilfully parrot's the government line?

 

[OldBlueFan]

-Well then I take everything I said back. He is the bestest.
-http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/02/20132153131413961.html
Al Jazeera. Those Western bastards.
-Hahahahaahahahahaahahahhaahahhahaha. Hahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhaa. Fox News now and CNBC and CNN during the Dubya years were and are about as scathing as you can get, and they are still allowed to operate with impunity. What Chavez did to RCTV and tried to do to Globovision are downright criminal actions.
-I thought that was Castro that did that already?

Maduro will probably win the election since emotions are running high, but after his term, you'll see the end of Chavismo.

That's funny, you claim it's illegal for governments not to renew licences that they issue? Since when?

As for the great and mighty "free" US media, tell me which ones:

• Criticised the Iraq war BEFORE it happened?
• Have criticised the torture of Bradley Manning and the silencing of other whistleblowers under the Obama DoJ?
• Have done anything but rationalise and justify the torture perpetrated in Gitmo?
• Have criticised - or even reported on - the slaughter of civilians throughout the world under Obama's drone program?
• etc etc etc

Add to that the fact that the oh so pure and virtuous NYT actively concealed evidence of Bush's illegal wire-tapping in 2003 and only revealed it after he had been safely re-elected in 2004, and you get the true picture of the US media. Sure, they'll prattle on about irrelevancies and they have their partisan loyalties, but they sing with one (silent) voice when it comes to the true crimes of their government.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

When was the last time a US news service actively participated in a coup attempt and disruption of the country's most important industry?

So do you want to try explaining to me how a press subject to political vendettas by the President is somehow freer than that in the US - as was your original claim?

Why would you have to "mandate" anything when the media wilfully parrot's the government line?

Seriously? "Obama is a socialist muslim wanting to bring down america" ring a bell? The exposure of abu ghraib? The fact the conservative press was pretty much able to facilitate the rise of the tea party?

The Venezuelan equivalent of Julian Assange is probably getting the shit kicked out of him in a Caracas warehouse by Chavez supporters. That's ok though - Venezuelan national security comes first.

 

[OldBlueFan]

So do you want to try explaining to me how a press subject to political vendettas by the President is somehow freer than that in the US - as was your original claim?

See my post directly above this one. It was, after all, posted 10 minutes prior to your question.

You can also see here: More Than 100 Latin America Experts Question Human Rights Watch's Venezuela Report

In the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, the Sinclair Broadcast Group of Maryland, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the U.S., planned to show a documentary that accused candidate John Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War. The company ordered its 62 stations to show the film during prime-time hours just two weeks before the election. Nineteen Democratic senators sent a letter to the U.S. F.C.C.http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200410/101504.html calling for an investigation into this proposed intervention by Sinclair in the campaign, and some made public statements that Sinclair's broadcast license could be in jeopardy if it carried through with its plans. As a result of this pressure, Sinclair backed down and did not broadcast the film.

And more: Academics Respond to Human Rights Watch Director's Defense of Venezuela Report

Broadcast TV and radio stations in Venezuela are free to criticize the government as much as they want, without fear of losing their broadcast licenses. As in the U.S. and other democracies, however, they cannot become political actors, and still expect from the government a license for a monopoly over a public broadcast frequency. In fact, as we explained in our original letter, the opposition media in Venezuela has more freedom to be political actors, for example in election campaigns, than do their counterparts in the United States. By making it appear as though the Venezuelan government is using its control over broadcast licenses to restrict the media more than is the case in the United States or other democracies, HRW engages in a very serious misrepresentation of the reality of freedom of expression in Venezuela.

...
But in addition to its active participation in the coup, RCTV distinguished itself by consistently being a political actor in ways that are not allowed in the United States or other democratic countries, for broadcast licensees. (In the United States even cable TV outlets are subject to restrictions with regard to election campaigns, that Venezuelan media are not bound by.)

 

[Iason]

That's funny, you claim it's illegal for governments not to renew licences that they issue? Since when?

If that is all you think that happened, then we're done here.

But hey, more Western talking points.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/06/venezuelas-economy-under-chavez-by-the-numbers/

Please quote Venezuela Analysis again, though, that Greg Wilpert is just the fairest. One biased report deserves another. http://alekboyd.blogspot.com/2009/01/gregory-wilpert-of-venezuelanalysis.html