Deputy Israel Sotillo of Chavez’ PSUV shows off his ignorance defending legislation on the social responsibility in electronic media, defending the use of the term, because there are many media that need to be included, “not only the Internet, but also Mozilla” minute 1:13 and repeats it in minute 1:22 just to make sure that everyone knows he has no clue about what he is talking about. Deputy Sotillo was Vice-President of the Science, Technology and Social communication Committee of the Venezuelan National Assembly whose mandate “ended” on Jan. 4th.
And what’s with the hat?
The Devil's Excrement 
February 3, 2011 at 4:12 am
I found this page by coincidence while searching for something else, but read to get a quick idea of what’s going. Does this mean that they’re already talking about censorship of the Internet in Venezuela?? There are rumors about this possibility for the US too, and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones (some accuse him of actually working to brainwash people to accept the disasters he “warns” about) are linking Wikileaks to Internet censorship in the US. So it does interest me to know where in the world this has actually moved from conspiracy theory to actual political debate.
January 20, 2011 at 11:43 am
He’s going bald. Thats why the hat. Vanity.
January 19, 2011 at 1:43 am
Firepigette-
“As for the conservative bias you mention which is also surely existent, it does not effect or promote Chavez propaganda or his worldwide support.It involves itself with other types of problems.”
In no way did I infer that the “conservatives” promoted Chavez propaganda. What I wrote and meant was that those brainwashed into that dogma are no more open to facts or reason than the leftist fanatics are.
Here is what I experience: When I attempt to set the record straight about Castro or Chavez, the leftists call me a capitalist pig who hates the poor and wants the US to invade Venezuela. When I try to set the record straight on what the neocons and republicans in government have done and caused, I am called a liberal commie etc. No difference at all in the mentality, only in which variety of brainwashing propaganda they have swallowed.
January 17, 2011 at 11:47 am
[…] From The Depths of Ignorance of The Revolution: Legislating the Internet and Mozilla […]
January 17, 2011 at 11:07 am
M Astera,
Thanks for your reply.
I realize just how hard or perhaps impossible it is to convince thus type of ideological mindset, which is why I think one should start by attacking or exposing the bias of the press.
Most people function in terms of the status quo.Right now much of the opinion forming press is pro leftist therefore biased towards Chavez -they have the most status right now.Conservative news outlets do not have the status to affect a change respecting Chavez’s propaganda machine.
When people see that the status symbols begin to fall in their image then they will be more amenable to change.That is the function of the herd mentality…to change in mass, rather than as individuals.
As for the conservative bias you mention which is also surely existent, it does not effect or promote Chavez propaganda or his worldwide support.It involves itself with other types of problems.
January 17, 2011 at 8:07 am
What else does Mozilla do besides create Firefox?, a search engine?
How can a search engine be considered “bad?”
January 17, 2011 at 7:31 am
Alan Woods? He’s not English, he’s bloody Welsh, known mainly inside his house in Cardiff.
By the way, how many Antonios are there in this place? It’s getting confusing. Reputations are at risk.
January 17, 2011 at 12:50 am
Thanks to whomever post the Pedro Navajas’ video. I love, love, love that song.
January 17, 2011 at 12:03 am
“I have family in England where Chavez is close to a folk hero among those who have any interest in international affairs, because they believe in the authenticity of his ideology of redeeming the poor and the oppressed.These people are not necessarily Marxists but believe in what they call a ” just ” society, and buy the Chavista ideology that he is working towards that.”
And you would think that being British, they would be wary of such “heroes of the common people” abusing military garb. Modern English history is highlighted by the wars the British had to fight against two such ones, while the “heroes” tried to blockade and/or bomb Britain, previous to invasion of course.
January 16, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Firepigette-
You wrote “I have family in England where Chavez is close to a folk hero among those who have any interest in international affairs, because they believe in the authenticity of his ideology of redeeming the poor and the oppressed.”
I am very familiar with this mindset. Chavez attacks the capitalist oligarchs and pretends to support the poor; these people also have probably watched a propaganda film about Chavez that makes him out to be a hero of the common people. That is all they know, endit, ALL they know: emotion-based propaganda.
I have spent years trying to educate people like that, and it is simply impossible. Why, I don’t know. Something strange has been done to the inside of their heads. Logic, reason, facts make no difference; have no impact at all. Any attempt to reason with them by pointing out the facts only results in them attacking you personally and calling names.
Interestingly, there is no difference between these people and those who support the phony “conservative” Republican party in the US. You can give them all the facts you like to show that these “small government conservatives” started two wars based on lies and ran the US National debt to $15 trillion while shipping all of the jobs to China and it makes no difference. They cannot hear you and will only call you a commie liberal.
It’s not ideology or dogma, it is blind faith, a religious belief system. It is impossible to reason someone out of a belief that they were not reasoned into.
Hans: Yes, 404 page not found. Mea culpa. Best that they not put me in charge of internet censorship. :=)
January 16, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Antonio,
Ideology may be only an excuse for Chavez to hold on to power but what matters is that people buy his version and support him for that reason.
I have family in England where Chavez is close to a folk hero among those who have any interest in international affairs, because they believe in the authenticity of his ideology of redeeming the poor and the oppressed.These people are not necessarily Marxists but believe in what they call a ” just ” society, and buy the Chavista ideology that he is working towards that.
They tend to reject any suggestion that Chavez is just looking out for himself and his family.
Ideology is a powerful weapon to recruit support from those who share it.It is not always under the same name but the general patterns of core messages are very similar.
January 16, 2011 at 5:11 pm
I think the core Chavez’s ideology to change Venezuela to “Republica Chavista de Chavez ( & Family Corporation)”, socialism is only the excuse to get that.
Yeah, Chavez uses socialism to talk about something “mientras se queda con el coroto” and have all the socialism followers around the world dreaming, thinking and supporting Chavez robolution.
After all, they are very orphan after Soviet Union falling, the Cuban failure and North Korea’s nightmare. (China is a question of market). Only Chavez (and his Bolivian pupil) use today the old communist way to expropriate private properties and suppress free market, for the delirious of pure socialism and communist. But at the end all properties became Chavez’s properties, all the workers of those properties now work for Chavez, for the enjoying of him, his family and his closest followers; this is the biggest fraud in Venezuelan history.
January 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Kepler,
You have misunderstood every single point that I have made.Re read my last comment where I re clarified to Kolya what he misunderstood as well.
January 16, 2011 at 4:30 pm
“So, both Isa and loboferoz are implicitly supporting the idea that free speech – wherever it is expressed – should be unlimited – which amounts not to “libertad” but to “libertinaje”. Even in the North and in Europe you cannot say whatever you want in public and even less these days with anti terrorist legislation in place everywhere.”
I don’t believe in such laws or in the whole idea of safety from terrorism through censorship, if you want to know.
If there is a crime in speech (or any other activities), It should be determined who are the victims, exactly how they were harmed, and how much, publicly. That’s civilized.
On the other hand (other than in their physical and private persons), government officials have NO RIGHTS whatsoever attached to their position. Saying that they are corrupt or incompetent and should be removed from office, convicted and jailed is no crime. It’s opinion. If they overstep their functions, there is even justification for forcible removal in the Constitution.
Whether a threat constitutes a crime depends, actually, on the possible or actual PHYSICAL consequences of such a threat, and on it’s real intent. Ordering people with bombs to detonate them, or saying you are threatening to bomb when you have placed them, or at least deceived people that you have done that or are actually capable of it, is a crime.
By that measure, Hugo Chavez & Co. (incl. Luisa Ortega, the Attorney General) are guilty in more ways that can be counted briefly because they spew threats on a daily basis: Given that several armed, paramilitary, illegal “collectives”, widely documented internationally, operate freely and follow the Leader of the Revolution.
And nowhere you do answer the problem of biased enforcement, and cry paranoia when it is remarked that the Attorney General is biased; who admits gleefully that she is with the Socialist Revolution, apart from being an official of the Executive.
Again Socialists come with that “libertinaje”vs.”libertad” idiocy, that seems taken out of some ultraconservative Catholic tirade made to justify why the government should ban nude images, sex before marriage, free trade and free disposal of private property by owners.
They cannot find a crime and the “victims” are actually consenting and content. Sorry, your cover is blown. We will not have the limits of liberty defined (and confined) artificially and capriciously by zealots with an ideological/religious agenda. Find another guise.
January 16, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Antonio is right. It is about Chavismo for Chávez.
Firepigette,
Read Kolya’s reply again.
You have been reading perhaps “America’s March to Socialism: Why we’re one step closer to giant missile parades”, by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints-follower Beck who bases his knowledge on ideologies on what he read while trying to get away from alcoholism. You may probably say he is a fine journalist from a non-mainstream un-PR news channels that dares to say the truth.
Recommendation:
a good world history book printed in Britain plus Watson’s “Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud”
January 16, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Kolya,
I never said there was a threat of worldwide socialism as in Marxism taking over the world.What I am saying is that on a worldwide level, the support for Chavez comes from those who believe in socialism as a general term..
When I refer to liberal democrats I speak of the liberals from the democratic party.They are a faction of the democratic party.I am not referring to the blue dogs and I am not saying that all liberal democrats are supportive..But MANY of them do support Chavez, or at the very least they cut him some slack due to their sympathies lying on the left, with he ultimate goal of helping the poor.
As Chavez has been successful in claiming this mantle, many who want to see the situation of the poor improve, even if they do not totally agree with Chavez’s methods, or have some scruples about them,support him as a viable solution.
The term Liberal Democracy does not imply left wing.It is unrelated.
There is a tendency in the left wing both in the US and Europe to approve of Marxist remedies particularly in the case of the 3rd world.They argue that it requires drastic redistribution of wealth and massive government involvement to help the poor.Consequently they are often supportive of or at least tolerant of authoritarian governments who promise to apply these methods to attain the goal of helping the poor.
I agree that this ideology has little chance in reality but that is not my point.My point is that the support or at least the benefit of the doubt that many socialists, social democrats or liberal dems of the democratic party give to Chavez, helps him to get away with the abuses he has been committing.
Again this is a general tendency of those on the Left but by no means has Chavez been able to convince all of them.Sometimes you may even have people who are very left wing seeing through Chavez while other more moderate left wingers fall for his shannigans.Pompeyo Marques is a good example of the latter.Manuel Caballeros also.
January 16, 2011 at 2:01 pm
There is a confusion of terms here. The USA, UK, Canada, France, Chile, Sweden, Japan are all liberal democracies. This is a matter of definition and people of the right and the left agree with it. As far as I know, Marxist ideologues are the ones who pushed for worldwide socialism, but Marxism is a discredited force that has not been a threat to the world in over twenty years. Yes, there are some remnants and patches left, but neither they nor their ideology have much of a chance. Even in the case of Chavez and Castro, let us remember that their reach and influence is more limited than it was. One of Venezuela’s tragedies is that it embraced a failed ideology at the time when its failure was already apparent to most of the world. I’m not saying that liberal democracies can now rest on their laurels. There are other threats and challenges, but the spectre of worldwide socialism is not one of them.
January 16, 2011 at 11:40 am
Half Empty,
Not so.
Chavez only wants to stay in power, true, but many in his base, and his worldwide support( which adds to his power) comes from worldwide socialism to which many liberal democrats adhere to.
If this is not addressed every complaint leads to nowhere.
It his hard to address because so many people are ideologues and cannot question their beliefs.
January 16, 2011 at 11:23 am
The only ideology of Chavez is stay in power as long as he can and enjoying it. Discussion about liberal, conservative, communist ideologies is interesting but not applies to Chavez.
And there you have it, a very nice summation. Deserving IMHO of a post iteself.
January 16, 2011 at 10:11 am
Don’t be obtuse, it is not only about the Internet, Chavez introduced hate in Venezuela calling the opposition oligarchs, thiefs, exploiters, despite being 50% of the vote, threatening with weapons and jailing people falsely accused . If you dont understand the missuse of Justice under Chavez there is nothing we can discuss with sincerity. I have been threatened because I disclose corruption. People have been jailed for saying things like they don’t like Chavez. It is not hate to show and prove you dont like a Government, hate is to threaten, to injure, to lie and to kill, Chavez has been doing that since 1992.
There is censorship in Venezuela, the media is pressured, programs are removed from the air because the Government puts pressure nd meanwhile, the Bolibourgeois get rich and the media can’t denounce them. Great!
This post is not about the Internet law in any case, it is about the quality of people Chavez’ PSUV hand picks to the National Assembly. If that is the best they can do for VP of the Science and Technology Committee, this country’s future is in jeopardy, but we know that.
January 16, 2011 at 9:43 am
HEY PEOPLE! There is a UN Convention on Human Rights which is over 50 years old and Venezuela, signed it, why don’t we just respect it. No hay que inventar la rueda. For those unsure, Human Rights precede the aspirations of the state to rule. Human beings create the modern state to defend human rights, so we may all live in peace. Not the other way around, the State gives us human rights for us to defend the state. This is Statism another ideology.
Ideologies are the bane of science and human development. There is but one truth in nature and it is up to man to research and find it (we are not there yet by a long shot). Let the chips fall where they may. Look what happened when ideology started to get in the way of climate research, we got sidetracked and a bad rap. And in Economics, ni se diga, all politicians have their ‘economists’ each with a ‘truth’ to fit the political view of the client. Complete disregard for what has been discovered in this science (what works and what does not) and what we honestly do not yet know.
January 16, 2011 at 9:37 am
Miguel – sorry to say this but you really sound a little paranoid to put it mildly and I honesly fail to understand why your normally elegant arguments deteriorate into personalizing these matters. I am not “cheering” but stating the facts. Please be kind enough to accept my apologies if my point of view upsets you, but varying points of view are essential to support democracy.
Is any one going to explain what the new legislation will prevent you from doing on Internet besides spreading hate and threats? I don’t see Chavez spreading hate or threats on his Twitter account.
January 16, 2011 at 8:42 am
Oh yeah! And Luisa Ortega is better than this guy? Sure, there has never been a more biased General Prosecutor (Not Attorney General) in Venezuela and she was never a great professional, she receives orders from above, where by the way, most of the hate comes, but that is never prosecuted. Judges are the same, the President of the Supreme Court was removed TWICE for corruption as a judge and is quite mediocre, she just does not wear a hat.
The Government selectively decides who it goes after, this just gives it more tools to do so. But you cheer, let’s hope one day they don’t go after you or your family just because…
January 16, 2011 at 8:09 am
Greg Buls – “But giving them the power to regulate speech short of explicit incitement to violence is too much power.”
This is precisely what the new legislation on Internet in Venezuela covers. Thanks for making it crystal clear to the other commentators here. “explicit incitement to violence” is what is covered plus “enciuraging crimes to be committed” by sowing hate and racism, for example.
January 16, 2011 at 8:03 am
So, both Isa and loboferoz are implicitly supporting the idea that free speech – wherever it is expressed – should be unlimited – which amounts not to “libertad” but to “libertinaje”. Even in the North and in Europe you cannot say whatever you want in public and even less these days with anti terrorist legislation in place everywhere.
Post on a site in London, for example, that you are going to bomb a public building and you are certain to be at least questioned. Threaten to assassinate someone or overthrow the government and you will be arrested. If this is the sort of freedom you defend to suit you political stance then you are defending anarchy – not a civilized society.
Isa, it is not deputies like Sotillo who decide what persons may have violated the law, but the attorney general’s office and finally the judges and tribunals. And you call me stupid when you make this sort of child level mistake in your understanind of how governments work?
As I said in my original comment – for people who use Internet correctly this will not have any effect. Please explain what the new legislation will prevent you from doing on Internet besides spreading hate and threats?
January 16, 2011 at 12:34 am
“Yes Pygmallion, the problem is that you are so stupid that people exactly like the on in the video are the ones that decide who has violated the laws.”
I don’t think that deputy Sotillo, or commenter Pygmalion for that matter are necessarily stupid themselves. Or should be necessarily stupid, to become straw men in an argument about such laws as restrict speech.
No matter, deputy Sotillo, and Pygmalion, support an extremely stupid idea. The idea of laws regulating speech. NOBODY is so intelligent, or so wise, or so honest, to be given arbitrary power to decide over the content of speech. But they believe they are that or that they know somebody who is (probably Lt. Col. Chavez through any of his appointed sargents ); or at least declare it loudly.
Of course, once you pass such a law curtailing property or personal freedom; real-world politics dictates that YOUR PARTY ONLY should be the one deciding how to enforce the law and who should be its targets. Else you can be bitten by your own issue down the road. In this regard, it simply DOES NOT MATTER how intelligent or knowledgeable you might be about the issue. Technocracy does not cut it either. Only if instead of politicians you had saintly technocrats (they would not go into politics in the first place) in government, maybe…
Just to underscore the point that we are all ignorant, dishonest, greedy and stupid when ruling over other’s peoples’ lives, Sotillo is quite an ignorant (and arrogant to go with the ignorance) regarding the area on which he has influence. Apart from keen on screwing the “escualidos”…
My view of the matter is that this is just not a problem of “revolucionarios” with socialist or fascist tendencies. It’s a problem of every polity on Earth that still has some debate going and people wanting to lead lives of their own independent of the whims of government.
January 15, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Yes Pygmallion, the problem is that you are so stupid that people exactly like the on in the video are the ones that decide who has violated the laws. For God’s sake, he is Vice President of the Science and Technology Committee, demonstrating once again why this so called revolution is just a bad and silly joke that fanatics like you support.
January 15, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Canada, China, most European countries, and many others all censor political dialogue. It’s usually not a big concern to taxpayers because the government targets the fringe: holocaust deniers and the like. But giving them the power to regulate speech short of explicit incitement to violence is too much power.
When things deteriorate politically, that is precisely the time when the most vigorous exchange of ideas is most important. Marginalizing people then actually does increase the likelihood of violence, and telling people that they cannot vent their frustration means it will sometimes find another outlet.
January 15, 2011 at 7:32 pm
“m_astera Says:
January 14, 2011 at 10:56 pm
He just dropped “mozilla” in to show that he knew an internet term other than twitter.
Why stop there? Regulate DNS, URL and 505 page not found too!”
page not found is 404 😉 …
January 15, 2011 at 5:47 pm
JGross – please keep your “gross” ideas and insults to yourself. I would prefer to be a “fanatic” than have limited reasoning powers like you to jump to such unfounded conclusions. Sad, very sad!
January 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm
My last comment to this post,
The only ideology of Chavez is stay in power as long as he can and enjoying it. Discussion about liberal, conservative, communist ideologies is interesting but not applies to Chavez.
Communist ideology is only as disguise; he is a military and he can become in the opposite side of the political ideology is this help him to get the power. Communist ideology is most because his brothers and others that influence him, but I can tell you he is not communist by conviction, is more by convenience.
January 15, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Not to spoil the party in bashing this particular politico. But the most cursory knowledge of history and politics will show that
1-. Complete and audacious ignorance (or worse, obfuscation, willful confusion and out-and-out contempt) about the issue at hand.
2.- An amount of self-righteousness about par with said ignorance (and a matching lack of self-consciousness).
3.- A lack of examination of the ethical issues surrounding human activities and the legislation supposed to regulate them.
4-. Callousness towards unintended (or intended) consequences of laws/regulations and their enforcement.
is more or less common about par, across eras and nations and among elected and unelected officers. No nation and no century is free from it. Quite the contrary.
It could be said that liberalism (classical) stems from a desire to live and let live. In reality, liberalism is a form of wariness. Of individuals like these, with a egos and moral self-righteousness far outstripping their wisdom and intelligence, having coercive power over the lives of others.
January 15, 2011 at 4:35 pm
A sane ideology begins with admits that it do not hold the absolute truth, do not have all the answers.
The tragedy of Chavez and followers’ ideology is they pretend to have an absolute truth and try to set the lives of everybody else with that ideology.
January 15, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Antonio
“Very difficult to achieve.’
True, and almost impossible to achieve in a total sense however the very fact that we consciously de -identify from an ideology or system of thought is enough to begin to get a glimpse of reality.The more we insist on using the filter of ideology, the less reality we see.It is about degrees.
Truth is not necessarily relative, but our perception often is.
If we have no conscious striving to see the truth then we should give up now, because otherwise we make the choice to live out a set of lies.It is just your lies against mine.My fears confronting yours.
January 15, 2011 at 3:54 pm
It just goes to show what a sad state Venezuela is in when video of people getting run over in the street is hardly noticed. I had to search it.
If that had happened here in the EVIL EMPIRE, it would have dominated most of the news channels for the day and it would have garnered significant world coverage. I guess when you have such a high murder rate what are a few more by a guy driving a Mercedes.
January 15, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Firepigete says…
“reality should never be filtered with any kind of mechanism or tool…in this case (the case of ideology) the tool is a fixed mindset.In order to truly solve a problem we have to look at reality without the filters a a preexisting mindset.”
Very difficult to achieve. Reality is a representation in our mind; our sense, ideology, past experiences and education will always alter the reality. That’s why the truth always is relative.
We should read Schopenhauer, “The World as Will and Representation”
Reality is like the shadows of the truth on the end wall of a cave, in which never can see to the outside, we can see only the shadows and try to construe reality with them.
January 15, 2011 at 3:20 pm
When we are discussing the international support of Chavez in particular we have to be able to have an honest discussion about the liberal leftist dems all over the world, because it is they( and not conservatives of any kind) who support Chavez.This liberal left has done much to damage the image of Venezuela( the BBC is the worst culprit in this I have yet to see ), and to give him support albeit sometimes indirectly in the sense of misguiding public opinion.
The problem with this kind of discussion is that it pits us up against Latin American ‘thinkers’ who in their entirety are liberals themselves and refuse to open their eyes to the kind of thinking that has in large part created and sustained Chavismo.Thinking is not the correct word, because a true thinker has no trouble seeing both sides of the coin and choosing which side is the honest problem.Believer is the correct word here, not thinker.
There is no truly conservative debate in LA so talking about it or even criticizing conservatives from the stand point of the Chavez problem is futile.I am not referring here to other dictators past or present, but specifically to Chavez.
However if the liberal debate does not become more conscious if its internal problems we are doomed to continue the “revolution.”
There are many out there who claim to be part of the opposition who in reality are either lying to us, or to themselves.
You cannot be opposite Chavez and support his core beliefs and intentions.At most you can only be in disagreement in part.
What mainstream foreign media do I blame the most? The BBC.But there are many others to blame and I hope at some point this will be fully exposed.
January 15, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Antonio,
You are right.Ideology is a tool we use to see reality.This is exactly the problem :reality should never be filtered with any kind of mechanism or tool…in this case (the case of ideology) the tool is a fixed mindset.In order to truly solve a problem we have to look at reality without the filters a a preexisting mindset.
January 15, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Antonio,
You are right.
I remember the list published by THE diplomatic magazine of the US (one of the founders is Kissinger, el nombre de la revista no me viene a la mente ahora mismo), with a list of the “big dictators”. They listed all the ones the US does not like now, including Mubarak, who until very recently was OK, and our own dictator, Huguito.
But they did not include such dictators as Nazarbayev and others close to the West’s business interests.
Now, I read several of the “big” revelations of Wikileaks on drone attacks killing loads of civilians in Yemen being taken over by the president etc. many months earlier in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (THE standard newspaper in Southern Germany, a bit centre-left, but highly critical of Chavez) and in the normal news on ZDF (public tv station where all parties have a say in the nomination of directors).
ZDF has news for 15 to 30 minutes several times a day but is not a news-only channel. Still, I see more in-depth news in ZDF and ARD (two public German channels) than on pan-American media (well, the ones I have watched). For instance, I often see journalists taken the long way and interviewing at least as much time real locals in their local languages and not just the English-speaking interpreter of the ISAF troops or whatever.
Scandinavian/Dutch news also have more coverage “on the other side” and different countries but with much less correspondents, for obvious reasons: Germany has 82 million people.
I very seldom watch French France 24, but I recently did and saw an extensive report on Kazakhstan, including a bit on human rights, right when Sakozy was signing big deals there.
As for English, I find Robert Fisk reporting rather good for the Middle East and Arabic issues, even if he can get on my nerves with his remembrances of WWI.
I find it funny, but when I was a kid I used to read more news on Africa or Central Asia or whatever (yeah, I was a freak on foreign news) in local EL Carabobeno than what I later saw in the BIG NEWSPAPERS of the world. Of course, most of those news were simply news cables from EFE, UPI, etc as El Carabobeno has no correspondent abroad.
One of the big problems I see with most journalists is their total lack of solid knowledge on local history, including history of the economy in the region.
And with all of that: West media is better than Russian media and that of many other places.
January 15, 2011 at 1:32 pm
” It’s funny for you the only criminals are left. I’m not left, but I own up: “criminals are not only “everywhere to the left”.”
Kepler,
I never said this.Read again what I said….I say that in the case of Chavez those who support him are the liberal left and the criminals.Conservative NEVER support Chavez.
The criminals in Venezuela who support Chavez are the FARC and the drug traffickers.
Together( the criminals and the left all over the world) support Chavez.
January 15, 2011 at 1:28 pm
FC
TOTALLY agree
January 15, 2011 at 1:05 pm
As Carlos above, I new the story. But it’s so different to hear it from him!
So, the man does not know what is the internet? con razon le dicen el diputado morcilla.
I’m not talking about the hat… it puzzles me thou.
January 15, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Thanks, Kepler for clarify.
In other hand, what I really miss are the “democratic” media and countries that should paid more attention to authoritarian lunatics, but they did not because it is not in their own cynical political and economics interest.
For example, in Tunisia nobody seems show media interest until now, almost nobody said that the country was rule by an authoritarian government and human rights was a joke, the “civilized” and “democratic” countries only interested were in their owns economics business that go smoothly with Tunisia; and their only political worry was about if the Tunisian government repealed Islamic terrorist.
Now when the Tunisian president is gone we have every media and leaders are saying loudly that Tunisia is not a democracy and was ruled by a dictator. Where are they before that?. How I can be sure about the principles of those “democratic” media and countries stand for, if they can not point out clearly the examples against their principles?.
January 15, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Geeez… It’s true!!! The first time I knew about this story via twitter I assumed it was a joke or some misunderstanding.
BUT IT IS TRUE!!!!! The guy said it that way!!!and wearing a hat!!
Furthermore… the guy is supposed to be an expert in technology and media as Vice-President of such parliamentary committee ..
Where do you go????
January 15, 2011 at 12:01 pm
The illness called Liberalism tends to be particularly blinding because those who profess to its ranks seem to have a high degree of self congratulation for their faux kindness and interest in the poor.Like what Obama himself recently spoke of ” a sanctimonious” attitude.
The illness called conservatism prides itself too much in its practical application of government thrift and is paranoid about any money at all that is not earned.They often forget that the earning itself is not always fair.
Both are insane.Not to be eliminated( you made that one up). however very much to be conscious and way of.
January 15, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Antonio,
The Commonwealth is also everywhere in Africa. And even Canada has the UK queen as their head of state. As for the media: I am telling you it is very different in non-English speaking countries and it varies a lot.
For one thing, most countries here have the facto not a two-party system, but at the very least two parties in coalition and two or more in opposition. The media specially in German speaking countries, in the Benelux and in Scandinavia is such that you can very often
see top leaders of radically different ideologies or sets of thought openly debate in the “main” media and putting forward all their thoughts.
You can see outside election time the prime minister discussing with someone who is radically different.
I have said this repeatedly: one can often watch, for instance, a conservative chancellor discussing next to a German liberal, an ecologist (which is Germany is way different than in the UK), with a social democrat and with one from the Linke, which is way way to the left.
Of course there are lots of useful idiots for the so-called “revolution”, but they are definitely not getting more attention than needed in the usual media. You can always read praises about Chávez in minor newspapers and in such like Monde Diplomatique in the French-speaking community (and French speakers are definitely the most “izquierdistas”.
About Pearson: that is a meaningless useful idiot who is working, as far as I remember, from Mérida now. In her blog there is a page about how to find jobs. I am sure without the Robolución, she would be serving McDonald’s in Queensland now.
January 15, 2011 at 11:52 am
Jeffrey,
“I consider myself a democratic liberal”.
Not all liberals are fooled by Chavez, especially those who have some understanding or knowledge of Venezuela.
But ALL of the people who are fooled by him in the US are democratic liberals.
There are degrees of the political illness called progressive democrats, just as there are degrees of the illness called conservatism.
Any ideology once believed in become a lie and creates a blindness to the truth.
January 15, 2011 at 11:39 am
I am not against any specific ideology, that it is a tool to interpreted the reality, and as any tool like knives, can be use as weapon to destroy in hands of inept and totalitarian.
January 15, 2011 at 11:07 am
I consider myself a democratic liberal. That is why I hate Chavez, who is a Soviet/Cuban totalitarian.
That’s why I support the MUD, which is a big tent organization for all those who know that Chavez has to go.
I think Chavez used people like me to gain power, then showed his true fascist/communist totalitarian views once in power.
But maybe the MUD is made up of people who think that “Macchiavellian leftist humanists” should be a target once Chavez is out? Some here seem to think so.
January 15, 2011 at 11:06 am
Hitler, Stalin, both demonstrated that lefties and righties (fascist) have enough criminals at almost equal quantities.
Australia was and is very Europe, It is part of the commonwealth, a call god save the queen everywhere. I did not understand Kepler on this.
But they can be proud of their country, shows lot efficiency in the flood disaster, lost of countries can not react like they did.
January 15, 2011 at 10:38 am
Firepigette, that just proves that stupidity is a crop that grows everywhere regardless of habitat. Yes we could and should do more, but don’t expect the stupid people to correct their ways. This kind of folk has existed since Time Immemorial.
The Democratic Liberals are also joined by some of their LATAM cousins: very highly educated anti-Chavez Venezuelans who swallow the whole Evil Empire nonsense as well. That’s not to say the US always behaves benevolently or altruistically. Every nation must do what’s in their own interest. But to say it’s all the US’s fault is to abdicate responsibility.
The funny thing is, these very same people who criticize the US are also the first ones to ask: “Where are the Gringos? Why aren’t they doing something!?” when some global problem or disaster occurs…. Oh so NOW they should intervene? Hypocrites…
January 15, 2011 at 10:37 am
Firepigette,
Australia is no longer part of Eurasia, it’s a little bit to the Southeast.
It was never part of Europe proper.
What kind of Europe “mass media”? Are you talking about some particular media in Germany? In Switzerland? In any Scandinavian country? In France? In the Benelux countries? In the Iberian peninsula?
Are you referring mainstream media something like Fox News in the US?
I understand FOX News is a rather popular news channel in the USA.
In any case: I think this whole discussion about “evil” is TÍPICA of Americans in general (not just the US, but Chavistas as well, for instance, extreme leftists in many places from Mexico to Argentina), but also Iranians and others. Calling a whole country “evil” is good if you are playing Dangeons and Dragons, but rahter simplistic otherwise.
The Iranian regime is now deeply involved in supplying weapons to Islamist groups in many places. The US government was deeply involved in supplying weapons to the Taliban just to bug off the Soviets. It also did very unkosher things in Central America. It had been supporting the Mubarak regime for decades now. I could go on for ages on that for France, for Russia, for China, etc, hell, for Belgium at least until some decades ago, now it’s just too insignificant.
It’s funny for you the only criminals are left. I’m not left, but I own up: criminals are not only “everywhere to the left”.
January 15, 2011 at 10:26 am
The autocrat of Tunisia was just send packing and it only took 25 years. Tweeter and Facebook played a part. Chavez has reason to be worried about the internet. And Sotillo is just another mamon.
Read about it here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7382926.html
“U.S. diplomatic cables recently released by WikiLeaks called Tunisia a “police state” and described the corruption there, saying Ben Ali had lost touch with his people. Social networks like Facebook helped spread the comments to the delight of ordinary Tunisians, who have complained about the same issues for years.”
January 15, 2011 at 9:38 am
The reason I brought up the above is because I think we don’t spend enough time discussing the reasons behind the unbridled corruption under the Chavez administration, and or the reasons behind corrupt practices in Venezuela that have existed since time memorial , some of which have deepened during the ” revolution”.Nor do we criticize enough foreign involvement in all this mess, nor do we sharpen our analytical skills much beyond insults and exclamation points.
Meanwhile there are an awful lot of Machiavellian leftists/criminals out there doing just that( using their analytical skills to find ways to falsify), and they are ALL over the world.
We have to go beyond just citing the horrors.We have to go deeper.
January 15, 2011 at 9:20 am
ojo!!
What I find most disturbing is that people do not often talk about the reasons behind such disasters.A big part of the problem is how easily fooled people are- not only in Venezuela, but also abroad.Here in the US there are many liberal democrats who find it self congratulatory and thereby wholly satisfying(“i am so compassionate and love the poor”) to believe that the US is an evil empire and that the reason LA countries are the way they are is our fault, and that Chavez is improving it, “it just takes time.”
Just the other day a liberal democrat cousin of mine( who is not particularly political) was invited to one of the myriad of get- together where they show the paradise of Venezuela under Chavez and incite the anger of US Americans towards our own government.
It is obvious to me that in Europe there is something akin to all of this as well,All i have to do is read their mainstream media in English and it stands out as plain as day.
Below is a website about one of those idiots from Australia.
http://www.expatinterviews.com/venezuela/tamara-pearson.html
January 15, 2011 at 9:20 am
Hate against the Government is forbidden, but hate expressed directly by the President for half of Venezuela is ok, permissible and approved, you are such a esbirro and fanatic.
January 15, 2011 at 9:18 am
Pygmallion is a veritable “esbirrito”
January 15, 2011 at 8:43 am
i don’t know wether to laugh or get angry.
Guys like this will tell me what to do or not to do on the internet or in mosilla?
January 15, 2011 at 8:41 am
My entire reaction is summed up in the following short video clip:
January 15, 2011 at 8:23 am
What a clown. Zero sense of decorum wearing a hat in the National Congress. He also needs a haircut and a shave. On the other hand stopping hate and death threats wherever they appear does not seen such an extreme idea evn if it means blocking such sites. For people who use the internet correctly the proposed legislation will not make any difference.
January 15, 2011 at 8:16 am
I want to know why they are not going to regulate Internet Explorer, did Bill Gates pay them off?
January 15, 2011 at 7:52 am
WTF is “SuperLan”?
January 15, 2011 at 7:32 am
You are taking all wrong, he is talking about Godzilla, for him the monster is real, but by reaction to nuclear radiation it is transformer into a monster computer virus. 🙂
January 15, 2011 at 7:31 am
That’s why we can be sure: Venezuela won’t be having atom bombs any time soon.
Roberto,
That was one of my favourite songs when I was a small child. I did not know Pedro Navaja would come to power in a couple of decades.
January 15, 2011 at 5:06 am
They are going to confiscate some more land to grow pigs for the Morcilla deal with Cisco Kid. The rest of the pigs will be used for making SPAM. Then they´ll censor the media to prevent people complaining about the quality of the SPAM, or indeed the Morcilla. Bon appètit.
January 15, 2011 at 4:35 am
I think he has a video here:
January 15, 2011 at 1:10 am
morcilla dijo?
January 14, 2011 at 11:47 pm
You know Miguel, I actually received it by mail and the first time I played the video I could not understand what the guy was talking about…those other (I heard) “Morcilla” electronic media…it took me a second to get that he was referring to “Mozilla”!
The interesting thing is that the guy speaks well and sounds quite convincing!
January 14, 2011 at 11:22 pm
lol
Government by DUmmies.
Oh brother.
January 14, 2011 at 10:56 pm
He just dropped “mozilla” in to show that he knew an internet term other than twitter.
Why stop there? Regulate DNS, URL and 505 page not found too!
January 14, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Translation: ” If I say all this crap, Chavez is sure to get me another job in the government”