Chavez wants to censor Twitter

i just want to be clear socialism was never meant to a form of government or an economic system. Socialism was the idea that if you make a better society, then you produce better people who thus make the society better and so on. Where I draw the line with socialism (or communism's) is its weaknesses suffer from trying to utilize capitalism, which means now the society gets caught up in balancing wealth which is a slippery slope for a few reasons. What you see here is a socialist/capitalism hybrid that pretty much ends up being capitalism favored toward the labor, thats all. I figure this happened because all the socialist grew up in capitalism and again they didn't think of an alternative (there are actually many alternatives to a capital based society btw) which is why the reaction of the free market thinkers has always been "don't take my money".
I know in the states people are quick to jump into that conclusion rather blindly so I take the time to correct them when I get the chance.

Thats the common label leftists give to their opponents in Latin America. They call them bourgeois, rich kids, traitors, worms, but never once consider them fellow countrymen. You forget that all these people are Venezuelans.... at least 40% of them to boot. Very simple to dismiss an entire group of people with such a dishonest label.

A common tactic. I guess censorship is okay as long as its against your opponents.

Again the video bellow will give you a good idea of what kind of people are behind the opposition and the antidemocratic tendencies they carry. Again these are not isolated members, but the heart of the opposition. Please watch from 6:15 on or the whole video off you tube and decide for yourself whether the opposition and the media are being reasonable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm2PsOKL5a0&feature=related

I have already responded to this comment. Stop your stupid propaganda campaign. In fact when I sent it to you personally your response was as follows:

Good info on the message. I'm naturally suspicious about anyone that associates with the regime in Cuba in a friendly manner and I remember the power outages that were a daily part of life in Havana. But I also see where you are right. I think I will look into the stories a little but more before I post them.

The AP didn't seem to mention much about Chavez' efforts to try to renovate the energy grid and only mentioned his appeal to the Cuban VP for help. I think they mentioned it because they thought it would make more news and because it was more controversial.

My response was as follows:
#

It is obvious that the Venezuelan government is doing more than just
talking to Cuba. However, Cuba has had to deal with shortages in the
past, some due to drastic changes in the economy (the collapse of the
soviet union) where instantly the economy was cut in half, and where
they couldn't afford oil for agricultural production, because the US
conditioned the remaking of Russia with at the time not trading with
Cuba. Because of limited foreign exchange Cuba was forced to deal with
shortages, and it did so in ways that rationed what was their rather
than raising prices, and having the rich who pay for it having, and
those who can not going with out. Similarly in Venezuela shortage of
electricity would generally lead to a rise in prices, which the rich
could afford and the poor could not. And so by rationing it, while
trying to provide future sources of electricity they are trying to get
through this.

Again this article is incredibly biased. Though their is real problems
with government beaurocracies in provision of electricity in some
cases, in capital intensive industries where the cost of entering the
market and the scale needed to compete is high, their is little
competition in the free markets. Thus sometimes it is cheaper and more
efficient to provide it through the government, b/c the government can
sell it at closer to cost rather than at the huge profits that can be
demanded under markets that aren't competitive (for instance a patent
on medical goods provides a private monopoly which allows companies to
charge double the price it will go for once the patent runs out). The
same thing happens with electricity. If a private company owns the
dam, and the cost of building a dam ensures lack of competition, the
private company may make incredible amounts of money, whereas if it
were public you could sell the good far closer to cost. In all these
cases you have to weigh the degree of private versus public interest.
I live in Manitoba Canada, and our dams are public and our electricity
sells for cheaper than basically anywhere in North America, b/c though
Manitoba Hydro still makes a profit, it does not make the same degree
of profit that comes generally with natural monopolies. It also means
that the profit distribution in Manitoba Hydro is more equal b/w
workers and managers, also a good thing. We are a developed country
and so we don't suffer from shortages, and we have a range of skilled
workers to adequately do their jobs.

Their is real problem with beaurocracy in Venezuela, especially given
the failures in education prior to Chavez and the dislike for Chavez
among the old educated elite. They need to overcome this through some
reaching out to the old elite, through education of the poor, and in
some cases it may be most efficient to privatize things with price
controls (in cases where natural monopolies might otherwise exist).
Their is no easy answers in underdeveloped countries, and when we
present biased information we don't help the situation.

(continued) #

Of course their is more nuance to this story than others would
suggest. The main stream media will pick up Chavez's discussion with
Cuba on how to deal with the energy crisis but ignore, the more
comprehensive approach taken by the country. First of the energy
crisis is a result of 30 some years of disinvestment, and investment
in infrastructure has actually increased under the Chavez
administration, when the economy went from 25 years of actual
percapita decline in GDP to the growing again. It is also not
mentioned that the shortages are due to a major drought and when you
depend on hydroelecticity as Venezuela does, and you are not a rich
developed country, you are more effected by obscure circumstances.
Very little of us for instance are blaiming Haiti right now anyways
for the people that are in need because we know that they are a poor
country, and are struck by abnormal circumstances. Similarly if the
inadequacy to solve the problem is caused by pro-US policies as in
Haiti, it does not disparrage the US, whereas if the problems happen
to a government that is not supportive of the US we ignore the good
things that are happening and focus on the problems.

To focus particularly on Chavez relationship with Cuba in dealing with
the problem is also misleading.
" On Sunday, president Hugo Chavez announced the creation of a special
fund of $1 billion for the strengthening of the national electricity
system; implementing 59 generation and distribution projects, and 50
operation and maintenance projects...
Also yesterday the minister for Energy, Ali Rodriguez, reported that
Unit 5 of Termozulia, a large thermoelectric plant in Zulia state,
began functioning, adding 140 megawatts to the electricity grid. The
government also inaugurated a new thermoelectric plant in Merida
state, which will generate 12 megawatts and benefit 33,500 people in
the area.

The plant in Merida, one of the areas most affected by the blackouts
over the last few months, cost BsF 22.7 million.

In addition, the government is planning to add 1,692 megawatts between
now and May, and 2,315 megawatts in the second half of the year.
Chavez urged the relevant ministers to speed up the installation and
purchase of electricity generation plants.

“It’s about making more effort to purchase new plants from Russia,
China, Japan and Germany, and bring them here, “ he said.

He added that due to the prolonged effects of the El Niño phenomenon
and the consequent lack of rain, it was important to save electricity
and water to prevent the level of Venezuela’s main dam and electricity
source, Guri, arriving at a level of collapse. Guri provides 70
percent of Venezuela’s electricity needs.

Recently the government launched an energy saving plan, involving
early shop closing times and replacing incandescent light bulbs with
fluorescent light bulbs, among other things, with the aim of reducing
electricity consumption by 20%. Rodriguez said that so far consumption
has reduced by 4%." http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5114

where do I even start with something so anti leftist? Screw it

Stated like someone that actually does understand Latin American politics ...

Why are you posting sources from Chavista websites like VenezuelaAnalysis which receive funding from the Chavez government? I would look at those sources again.

At the root of the problem is the discontent that some Venezuelans have with Chavez. Dismissing them as all being puppets of the US government is flat out dishonest.

the first venezuelanalysis post is written by Bart Jones, who has written fairly extensively on Venezuela and is actually sourcing the national catholic reporter, the one written by eva gollinger is based on documents that she received by appealing under the Freedom of information act for ned, cia, and other government documents pertaining to Venezuela. The other is sources an ex cia agent. Read the sources before you criticize their bias. it makes for actual intelligent debate.

I was suspicious about the source. I read and I see that there was apparently a large involvement by the NED (National Endowment for Democracy). The NED denies any involvement in anything other than programs directed towards the "advance of democracy"... And Chavez points to the fact that the NED contributed to groups later found to have some relation to the coup against him and the opposition.

Here's the question: The NED is saying that it is innocent (but how could they not?) but to what extent can they be saying the truth? Chavez says groups like the NED support the opposition and uses it to discredit them. How much influence could a group such as that be involved in the opposition. From first hand experience, of the Venezuelan friends of mine who have participated against him have never received any money from the United States.

But to what extent can a man such as Chavez be believed? What is his end goal? Is it a more perfect democracy in Venezuela? Or a quest for power?

If you ask me Peter, I am suspicious of him. I do not trust his motives and the fact that I believe that he would benefit from painting the opposition as mere puppets of the US government, it should also come as no surprise that he is willing to lever that against them. I am especially suspicious of a man who aligns himself with Castro as well.

The NED has argued it's innocence in many cases but in many other cases has actually admitted funding the opposition in Venezuela and other countries where left-leaning leaders have a chance. These are not really debatable issues. Go through the Gollinger sources. The NED papers are their own and can't be argued with. Same with the CIA papers, etc. They quite adequately recognize funding to the opposition while the US was plenty aware that they were planning a coup. They have also been caught funding the opposition during the referendum campaigns there. It forces the left to radicalize oftentimes against the media. Again the same thing happened in Honduras, in Haiti during Aristide. It is in continuation with the US support for dictators all across Latin America over the past 50 years.

On Chavez it is not whether we like him or not. It's about whether he get's elected. The media issue is an issue everywhere. But it's not just about censorship, but how the media and capitalism in general (because it is supply based on demand and the poor have no demand) misrepresents the interests of the poor.

Also, just b/c a group is critically supportive (in that it can be critical of Chavez) but generally supports the overall pattern of Change in Venezuela does not mean it is supported by the Venezuelan government. I have not seen any evidence to substantiate the claim, and the site regularly appeal for viewer donations. Whereas my claims are grounded by documents from the organizations I criticized your claims are again grounded in your ideological dislike for the Chavez government, and so everything you post from them displays incredible bias and disregard for the majority of Venezuelans.

Great reply Derk.

I'm pretty sure I don't see any serious comments expressing those ideas or supporting Chavez, or anyone claiming to be a liberal and expressing those ideas. I resent being called a LibTard, and your knee-jerk partisan response to an internet comment (that apparently sends you into a frothy rage) shows who's incapable of rational thought. You should spend your time doing something more constructive than picking apart poorly written or obviously sarcastic posts to support your political bias.

Intriguing.

First, I don't recall responding to you. My post was a response in general to many comments I was reading below. I didn't call you a LibTard, you just seemed to have recognized that the term applied to you and took umbrage to the word. If the shoe fits...

There are several people on this post who are flaming Libs--jubal for one--whose posts are typically defensive of Chavez and nearly always trying to deflect blame from his policies by proposing all sorts of fantastic conspiracies by the evil USA. I was talking about them. Did you post some stupid comments that I should mock? I'll go look for them.

I wouldn't waste my time trying to have a rational discussion with a LibTard.

You put words in my mouth. I never said anything about the Evil USA. I said "To me it seems that there is a concerted effort being financed and supported from outside Venezuela to subvert and undermine Chavez"

It is you who added the "Evil USA." That my friend is a Freudian slip.

curtisreed's point however is that painting the students and opposition to all be puppets of the US government is dishonest and inaccurate. He said "Evil USA" for dramatic effect in my opinion.

God let's hope he is assassinated WAY before then.

why did you say that to Jose Luis? I think you misunderstood his post. He was saying that Chavez will try to censor twitter etc because it is empowering the opposition and the conditions within the country are getting worse. I don't think he's a Chavista

your comment is absurd. to claim that a short message = a virus demonstrates how little you understand about 1) the power of instant messaging across a network for any group trying to organize iteslf against an oppressive government, 2) how computer viruses work.
You are right that Chavez has subverted the democracy and is now essentially a Dictator disguised as a democratically elected leader. So there may be hope for you yet.

There is absolutely without a doubt a proxy war being wage against Hugo Chavez. It's impossible for the United States government to stop messing around with political landscape of Central and South America. As much as a patriot, I am (and personally think Hugo is crazy as a sh@t house rat!) you gotta admire the guy for his guts. It's just a shame that he is running his country into the ground and squandering their riches.

jubal, why is it apparently incomprehensible to you that Chavez is a horrible president, an oppressive, vile, vulgar, hateful caudillo who has divided the nation, whipped up racial hatred and unleashed a crimewave across the nation and in response to this, the people are rebelling?

Why are you so determined to believe that the US has to be "funding" and subverting poor little Chavez, instead of this being a very real rebellion by the Venezuelans?

As someone who has BEEN THERE, in the crowds, as someone who has witnessed the violence, the threats, I have absolutely NO DOUBT that this is a completely local rebellion. I myself was threatened at gunpoint by Chavista supporters, and I've seen the home of a political opponent that was shot up in the early morning by Chavez's terrorist supporters. I've known people who were NOT rich "oligarchs" who had their farms invaded, their land taken, their homes taken. I've known people who--for nothing more than signing a petition for the presidential recall referendum--were fired from their jobs and blacklisted so they could never again work in the country.

I've seen the food lines, the scarcity of goods that never existed in Venezuela before.

Chavez is another Noriega--Except that Chavez has billions of dollars in petreoleum money he uses to undermine the democracies of neighboring nations.

Sir, what you fail to understand or appreciate is that it is Chavez who is using his petroleum wealth to undermine the democracies in the region, to fund terrorist groups such as the Bolivarian Circles, Tupamaro, FARC, and even the Sendero Luminoso who are now sprouting up in Venezuela after being whipped in Peru.

The united states has a very real interest in assuring that dictatorship does not raise its ugly head in Latin America and Chavez is spreading socialist authoritarianism all across the hemisphere.

I am Ecuadorian and I keep up on the news as it is presented in Latin America. American coverage of International politics is dismal at best. I don't have anyway of knowing whether or not you have been on the street of Caracas, if you have well then touche for you. But I doubt that gives you the incredible insight that you claim to have.

I am very active in communication with people in Latin America and I hear their take on the Chavez, Morales, Correa, and Castro alliance. Generally it is looked upon as a positive thing countering the empire building corporatists of North America, England, and the European Union. But then again, most of the people I know are working class people and small business owners, people who are generally marginalized by capitalists and so called "economic freedom lovers".

I am by no means saying that Chavez is a saint and that the Vatican should canonize him, he is human with human weaknesses, but you are ignoring a large segment of the population and their poverty. Under Chavez these people have gotten things that no Capitalist, Conservative, Socialist hating right winger would ever give them, the right to self determination and a chance to get an education and a share of the national profit.

He calls it a tool of terror because the students use it to help organize their protests. The people here who are against it are acting like the leadership in Iran who want to shut it down for the same reason.

Twitter is tool of free speech and that threatens him. That is why it is banned in most totalitarian countries.

well, neocongo, I disagree that he has "greatly helped the poor". The value of the Bolivar has collapsed under his rule, food shortages are extremely common, many of his "misiones" are failing, such as Barrio Adentro (they are out of medicines and clinics are being closed), it's a total mess.

But most importantly, the violence in the city has increased by more than 300% and mostly in the poor neighborhoods, where they are suffering the brunt of the murders. In fact, some statistics I've seen indicate that Venezuela has suffered as many dead as what has occured in Iraq during the same period. Yes, it's THAT violent (Caracas was recently named the most dangerous city in theworld)

As a liberal, you DO need to defend the actions of your fellow liberals, congressmen and senators who have repeatedly defended Chavez and spread pro-socialist propaganda in his favor. And then there are all the liberal actors and film directors who get little woodies and can't wait to spend quality time with their favorite socialist.

Finally, you are right about nations that don't really succeed if they rely solely upon the sale of their natural resources, but you should--as a liberal--note that the socialist model has run directly contrary to the idea of using that wealth to invest in corporations and busines models that would increase wealth. No, just like Obama and the rest of the Liberals, you guys constantly attack "neoliberalism" and "capitalism" and then wonder why there is no investment in the country, why there is no job growth, why there is inflation and poverty and violence...

You actually have a LOT to defend. As a Liberal, I mean.

Juas, I want to apologize for last time btw. We both got a little heated.

Peter, I would agree with adding to the networks with some of their own. Having Chavez add several TV networks that support him or broadcast his message is not something I'm against.

But what I am against is shutting down other networks under the excuse of "counterrevolutionary" activity. I certainly would not see anyone here defending the government if it chose to shut down a TV network it deemed "counterrevolutionary."

Furthermore, Twitter is primarily a social network. The opposition may be using it, but that is their right to do so. Since when do people not have a right to protest?

Simply because they may not be the majority in Venezuela, silencing them or labeling them as "rich whiny kids" is wrong. They are also Venezuelans.... And I think you, and Hugo Chavez are forgetting that. They have a right to dissent if they do not like the path their country has taken, is that not also the point of democracy?

Furthermore, you mentioned that the opposition in Venezuela has gotten violent. That is to completely ignore the violence perpetrted on the opposition by Chavistas who come out on motorcycles to beat the students when they go out to peaceful protests. Of course, the police is never to be found, except when those students defend themselves, in which case they immediately become the ones who were "violent."

It seems that Venezuelans who are against Chavez don't matter anymore, because they are less than Venezuelan. Are they not also part of the "people"?

blah blah blah. Too much blathering and you're entirely off topic.

I am guessing that if Bush tried to censor or control Twitter and other social media during the Obama campaign, you probably would not have dithered around about whether or not that was authoritarian, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong.

friend, I have to disagree with you on this. The disparity in financial resources, power and access to communication already unfairly favors the government. The government is not supposed to own state-run propaganda machines. In fact, the Venezuelan constitution (the same Bolivarian constitution Chavez created to replace the old "moribund" one), like our own in the USA, explicitely prohibits the government from funding one political party over another. But Chavez does it anyway. And then he mandates that ALL of his speeches be carried by ALL venezuelan TV and Radio stations, another clear disadvantage for the opposition, who cannot get anywhere near as much coverage as Chavez.

He has also mandated a number of rules about the images and news that can be covered and broadcast and created laws that enable them to declare that a station such as Globovision could be shut down for "terrorism" if they simply broadcast images of protests or marches. He has created a monopoly for his own propaganda by limiting th eprivate media so they cannot even attend many of his speeches, they must simply accept the feed that is given to them, and the govt makes sure that the feed only has positive coverage, in some cases they fake the number of attendees and make sure no camera angles are used that reveal how few supporters there were in attendance.

In short, there should be no attempt whatsoever to justify a wealthy, powerful government shutting down all of the opposition broadcast companies and now trying to take control of the internet.

It is a clear case of authoritarianism, dictatorship, call it what you may.

OK< I'm game. Prove this:
"the opposition groups are encouraged to use violence and sabatoge." Prove that any opposition groups have used violence and sabotage.

"The US government dwarfs the size of the economy and funds opposition groups." Prove this. Show me documentation.

"The opposition groups have been involved in shutting down the oil sector" Prove this. The opposition has not had any control over any part of the oil sector for quite a few years now, probably 6 to 8. So what are you blathering on about?

"encouraging business strikes" Aren't strikes part of the democratic process? Aren't you liberals and your unions constantly threatening to strike unless there are labor concessions? So why is it that when unions and businesses join AGAINST a LEFTIST government, you Libs suddenly say that it's somehow "sabotage"?!

"involved in a coup against the government": There is serious debate about whether what occured back in 2002 was a "coup", since Chavez violated the constitution and the military rebelled, which, by their own oath to uphold the constitution, they were bound to do.

"initiated violent and destructive protests" Alright, you have again tried to portray the opposition as violent, when they have consistently been unarmed marchers shot down by pro-Chavez groups, from the case at Puente Llaguno, to the poor woman murdered after the Presidential REcall Referendum, when in both cases the perpetrators wore Red Berets, were surrounded by Chavez supporters who helped them, were protected by the govrnment (hell, the killers of Puente Llaguno were later praised as patriots and had a statue erected in their honor), and in every case they fired against unarmed protesters.

Dude, you are either sorely unaware of your own ignorance or you are a sick propagandist.

People really have no idea what the media is like in Venezuela, it's full blown support in the coup, and the way it is used to ferment violence today. Though again 60% of the population supports Chavez all the private media are virulently against him, and many participated and all supported the coup. Again shutting down twitter isn't going to solve the problem.

ON THE OPPOSITIONS AND VIOLENCE

On US involvement in the coup see Gollinger
On www.venezuelafoia.info, I have posted hundreds of documents that evidence the intricate financing scheme the U.S. government has been carrying out in Venezuela since 2001, that includes financing well over twenty million dollars to opposition sectors. The funding of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a quasi-governmental entity in the U.S. financed entirely by Congress and established by congressional legislation in 1983, has provided more than three million dollars since late 2001 to opposition groups, many of which were key participants in the April 2002 coup. And in June 2002, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), set up an Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) in the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, allegedly for the purposing of helping Venezuela to resolve its political crisis. The OTI in Caracas has counted on more than fifteen million dollars in funding from Congress since June 2002 and has recently requested five million more for 2005, despite the fact that it was only supposed to be a two-year endeavor. All evidence obtained to date shows that the OTI has primarily funded opposition groups and projects in Venezuela, particularly those that were focused on the August 15, 2004 recall referendum against President Chávez. --again violent opposition groups before and after the coup

...Top secret documents recently obtained and posted on www.venezuelafoia.info show that in the weeks prior to the April 2002 coup against President Chávez, the CIA had full knowledge of the events to occur and, in fact, even had the detailed plans in their possession. An April 6, 2002 top secret intelligence brief headlining “Venezuela: Conditions Ripening for Coup Attempt”, states, “Dissident military factions, including some disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers, are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chávez, possible as early as this month, [CENSORED]. The level of detail in the reported plans – [CENSORED] targets Chávez and 10 other senior officers for arrest…” The document further states, “To provoke military action, the plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month…”
So, when Ari Fleischer and Philip Reeker made those statements on April 12, 2002 on behalf of the U.S. Government, they did so with full knowledge that a coup had taken place, Chávez had been arrested and the violence in the opposition march, which they attributed to Chávez, had actually been a premeditated part of the coup plot. The top secret documents that prove this information show they were sent to the U.S. Statement Department and the National Security Agency, which means frankly, the White House knew what was happening all along. (not only that they were funding it)

A top secret CIA document from April 14, 2002 shows concern that Latin American governments will view U.S. foreign policy as “hypocritical” because of its sole endorsement of the Carmona coup government. http://venezuelafoia.info/evaenglish.html

see also http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/153/26170.html

see also http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/448

the navy helped during the coup: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/venezuela.duncancampbell

For a former CIA agents testimony on US involvement with violent opposition groups see http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1015.

You really have no idea.

Peter, you've swallowed a load of garbage. Sorry to say.

Eva Gollinger is a young woman from NY who has been shown to be a fraud. While she was still a student in NY she promoted herself as an "immigration attorney" before she had graduated from school, much less passed the bar exam. She was confronted about this and had to reverse herself, but that was just one example of some of her shinanigans.

She has repeatedly misconstrued the "evidence" she claims to have found. One of her most famous claims was proof that the Bush administration was "involved in the coup". What she found (following a FOIA request) was a State Dept memo that alleged to have heard chatter about a possible attempt to overthrow Chavez. Note, it said essentially "we are hearing about people who want to overthrow chavez", and NOT "we are planning to overthrow chavez", but she presented this as "proof" that the USA not only KNEW of it but was FUNDING it.

If you will read the document that she refers to, you will see that they are reporting on WHAT THEY ARE HEARING AND NOT WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING. What's more, according to the State Department, this information was SHARED WITH CHAVEZ.

She then got info from the NED that showed that the US had donated millions to "opposition groups". What Gollinger conveniently failed to do was to mention that a verylarge percentage of that went to Chavista organizations, much to the chagrin of the opposition. That is to say, the NED was providing money for democratic groups to organize themselves, regardless as to their pro- or anti- Chavez stand. But that doesn't support her accusations, so she neglects to inform you of that.

She then states, as she did in the quote you provided, that these are "violent" opposition groups. There is NO evidence or proof at all that ANY of these groups have ever resorted to violence. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The violence in Venezuela has been almost exclusively AGAINST the opposition and not BY them. The raids, burnings and bombings of news agencies have been done by pro-Government agents, such as Lina Ron, who have been photographed in the act.

Note how time and again she refers to "the violent opposition" without ever documenting a case where the "opposition" has engaged in violence.

And yet you eat it up with a little socialist spoon.

Oh, and 60% of the population does NOT support chavez, that has dropped considerably, and even if they did, that would be irrelevant, it would be like saying that 60% of Germany approved of Hitler, or 60% of Chile approved of Pinochet. So Fucking What?!

Don't tell me what I know, because I was THERE many times and during key moments of that history. My family is Venezuelan, I've spent far more time actually on the ground there watching this shit happen than you have, I don't just cruise leftwing blogs to get information like you do.

my God that is beyond stupid.

The snipers you mentioned were CHAVISTA supporters, NOT "opposition". Those snipers were filmed LIVE by Globovision and RCTA. The images were NOT "doctored", theywere live. The men who fired into the crowd were later decorated as heroes by the Chavistas.

And you are believing the film "The Revolution Will Not be Televised", a documentary that was created by an Irish team that was supported by Chavez 100%. Think about that: if you had a team of filmmakers working hand in hand with Bush and then you believed everything that they said, even when it conflicted directly with independent reports from MANY DIFFERENT NEWS SOURCES AND THOUSANDS OF WITNESSES.

You are a shameless propagandist

I read about that, but I think it was mostly concerned with members of the government posting "official communications" on other sites. But I think compared to Venezuela, the threat of that happening here is not as great. Venezuela is being racked by nationalizations of entire corporations and properties and active censorship and closing down of TV stations... Its a totally different beast.

google "fabian socialism," & take some time to seriously see the parallels that has become the "progressive" mindset & that have crept into the Demoncratic party, and you'll begin to see that controlling media (in any format) is designed to control the populace, and it can happen here if we are not diligent.

If the masses are unable to communicate and are ill informed, then it is more difficult to unify and defy, why do you think we have such contentious partisan media, if not attempting to divide and conquer? Class warfare, pitting the haves with the have nots... Ke-rhist on a crutch, it is a classic ploy to f##k over the masses.