Venezuelan Pesident Hugo Chavez follows Robertson's stupid comments with some of his own. When will it stop?
Reuters reports that Venezuela may seek to extradite Pat Robertson, saying the evangelist's comments about assassinating the Venezuelan president are an "act of terrorism."…
Article comments
26 - gonzo marx
i'm still asking if Mark Adams, or others...consider there to be any moral or ethical difference between what Robertson did (on OUR public airwaves, leased to him by the FCC)..and what some mullahs and imans have done on al Jazeera?
to me, they seem to be the exact same thing...slightly worse, since it is against Federal Law to commit an assasination..so it appears to be a domestic incitement to violate a Law as well as "terrorist threats" against a foreign leader
in both cases, those involved are self proclaimed "holy" men attempting to instigate political killings
thoughts?
Excelsior!
27 - Janheram
As a Venezuelan, I feel I should drop some lines for those who take their time for this discussion.
I must say, to begin with, that Mr Chavez is a respectable man with a very unheard of style (the style of the people). It's unheard of because rarely will main-stream media actually broadcast common members of their society and more specifically those who are poor or don't have the appropriate look (like Chavez).
Chavez has come to power supported by people who trust him because, he has done what he had promised before been elected (something that no other president in the Venezuelan history has ever cared about doing) One of his most important accomplishments has been bringing the state-own oil company back to the control of the interest of the people. This caused a coup and then a two-month long strike promoted by powerful corporations through media. But most importantly, he has been the first president in our history to actually to actually talk about our wealth on television. Other presidents would always give a pessimistic view of our economy. Most of them live out of Venezuela nowadays until they can re-establish their mode of government because under the participative democracy of the people of Venezuela, they are supposed to be in jail.
Chavez has begun a process of redistribution of wealth. A country that has been utterly rich in oil for over 90 years also had abundance in poverty. Chavez came to stop that in the name of Bolivar by proposing a participative democracy that enables ANY Venezuelan to have a voice and a vote. Chavez has activated a nation-wide literacy program to help millions of illiterate Venezuelans who had been exploited by national and international corporations because of their ignorance on laws and human rights. Nowadays, (aprox) 2 million former illiterate (and counting) are learning how to read (and how to read the constitution). Many are standing up for their rights in different sites in Venezuela. Native populations are also part of this oppressed population of course, and they have also stood up for their rights. Not only they can now stand up for their rights but they also know that they have the right to vote and many have registered to vote. In 1998 the population was around (aprox) 23 million inhabitants but only (aprox) 9 million could vote. Nowadays out of (aprox) 24 million, (aprox) 14 million are registered voters. The goal, as stated by Chavez, is to defeat poverty and illiteracy. He has announced that he hopes to declare Venezuela a zero-illiteracy territory in the years to come.
National and international corporations are disappointed with this goal for that will definitely affect their revenue (it would be as expensive as operating in the US or Europe!) Besides this, Chavez has ensured to establish a democratic system that reinforces Taxes. This has also enraged big corporations which were very well used to avoiding taxes during previous governments.
I would love to ramble on and on the reasons why the fake-Christian elite of the US and the elite of other countries, including Venezuela want to kill Chavez. But I think I have made my point: Chavez is indeed a guy that must be killed by those who praise money while they say they praise God.
Feel free to email me at janheram@gmail.com , especially if you don’t agree with me.
28 - Dave Nalle
>National and international corporations are disappointed with this goal for that will definitely affect their revenue (it would be as expensive as operating in the US or Europe!) Besides this, Chavez has ensured to establish a democratic system that reinforces Taxes. This has also enraged big corporations which were very well used to avoiding taxes during previous governments.<<
So what you're saying here is basically that Chavez is going to make Venezuela as unattractive as possible for international business interests, drive them out of the country, and equalize wealth by plunging the entire country into poverty because there will no longer be any oil revenue coming in, so basically Venezuela will become Cuba II, with everyone on the verge of starvation, virtually no trade or business, and people willing to risk their lives to flee the country by any means.
Dave
29 - gonzo marx
ummm..Question here Mr Nalle...
with oil at what, $70 a barrell, and Venezuela sitting on some huge fucking reserves...how exactly is the oil revenue going to stop rolling in and bankrupting the country?
if the previous commenter is correct, it sounds more liek the corrupted elements that have been robbing the state owned resource will be cut out, and the cash made from their oil will enhance the living standard of the citizens...
now, i know it is a Socialist bit here, but it IS their state run oil company...and it does make sense to educate and elevate the citizens rather than line the pockets of a few who are stealing from the profits
one would think that raising the nujbers of educated and literate workers would do nothing but help the economy locally
i also realize that your Haliburton stock may go down a bit if such comes to pass
but i still fail to see where ANY of this makes it ok for a US "holy" man to encourage state assasination fo a duly elected foeign leader,or how that is ethically or legally different from what the US government has condemmed mullahs and imans from doing
just my one sixth billionths of the world's opinion
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
30 - Silas Kain
Thank you, Janheram, for your input. It's a well known fact that the recent attacks on Chavez from the United States and liberal groups has only served to increase the President's standings in the ratings. After reading an interesting article in The American Prospect today I have to wonder how much of what occurred on The 700 Club last week was partially staged.
Administrations in Washington have always maintained questionable foreign policies with oil producing countries. The prevailing rulers (the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, and the House of Saud) who cooperated with American corporations in supplying petroleum were given a lot of latitude. Had those rulers been within America's borders they would not have lasted beyond a day. The current Administration in particular has several tentacles that reach out into the petroleum business. There's no need to go into that here but I think that anything that comes out of the mouth of a Bush ally must be considered as suspect. Pat Robertson may be a preacher but he is a savvy political businessman who comes from a family steeped deeply in Southern politics. Those liberals that discount his impact obviously have not seen how far his reach has gone in the last 12 years.
As long as the Venezuelan people are satisfied with the job Hugo Chavez is doing, the American government has no business involving itself in Venezuelan domestic policies. Allegations of human rights violations should be taken before the United Nations. That is the forum where the discussion appropriately belongs. The problem is that politically conservative Americans hesitate to give a U.N. agency too much latitude in fear of losing its own grip. Technology has created a global market has become fiercely volatile. A break in relations with Venezuela would be economically catastrophic for both countries. Among the top 15 countries that export petroleum to the United States, 7 are in the Western Hemisphere: Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Virgin Islands, Ecuador, Columbia and Brazil. These countries combined accounted for 55% of the petroleum imported by the United States in June. President Bush began his Presidency by snubbing tradition when he made his first foreign visit to Mexico rather than Canada. Politically it was viewed as a strategic move in light of the growing Latin American population in the United States. Less rhetoric out of Washington and Caracas is in order because the reality is that anyone who lives in the Western Hemisphere is an American. There are enough resources within our hemisphere where dependence on the Middle and Far East could be impacted enough to create an equitable economic, trade and political balance.
31 - Dave Nalle
>>with oil at what, $70 a barrell, and Venezuela sitting on some huge fucking reserves...how exactly is the oil revenue going to stop rolling in and bankrupting the country?<<
The way he described it made it seem like they would just price themselves out of the market alltogether. Jack up the price for the people who actually buy oil - because they don't like the multinationals - which leaves them with no market at all.
>>if the previous commenter is correct, it sounds more liek the corrupted elements that have been robbing the state owned resource will be cut out, and the cash made from their oil will enhance the living standard of the citizens...<<
Yes, but that corruption attracted them and kept them spending money in Venezuela. If they lose that incentive and the price goes higher than the rest of the market, why won't they just go look somwhere more friendly to their business?
>>now, i know it is a Socialist bit here, but it IS their state run oil company...and it does make sense to educate and elevate the citizens rather than line the pockets of a few who are stealing from the profits<<
Well sure, that makes plenty of sense - if you accept the dubious concept of a state run oil copany - but if no one wants to buy their output because of the hostile business environment, then everyone in the country will suffer economically.
>>i also realize that your Haliburton stock may go down a bit if such comes to pass<<
It's ok - I have even more money in alternative energy stocks.
>>but i still fail to see where ANY of this makes it ok for a US "holy" man to encourage state assasination fo a duly elected foeign leader,or how that is ethically or legally different from what the US government has condemmed mullahs and imans from doing<<
Well, that's an entirely different topic. I do agree that Robertson's statements are no different in significance than those of any other extremist religious leader from whatever religion. But then we don't do anything abotu the endless spouting of idiot clerics in Iran, so why shoud Chavez do anything about Robertson?
Dave
32 - gonzo marx
price themselves out of the market?
oh my, and here i had thought iot was you who had stated previoulsy abotu ANWR that it's all about the total global supply
now you are pre-supposing that Venezuela is suddenly going to be jacking up prices more than the Market already has?
or had it escaped yoru notice that within just a few years the barrel price has more than doubled, as has the price of a gallon of gas here in the US?
did you think that was Venezuela's fault?....puh-leeeeze
stick with your honest bit, that you just don't like it because it's socialist...i can easily accept that subjective opinion...but do spare me the chicken little prognostications until we have some indication that such events will come to pass....K?...tnx
Excelsior!
33 - Dave Nalle
Huh, Gonzo? When did I ever say our current high oil prices were Venezuela's fault. The earlier pro-Chavez commentor suggested that Venezuela would try to essentially gouge the multinational oil companies. I think that's a losing proposition for the same global market reasons you mention which apply to ANWR.
Dave
34 - Steve S
It's a well known fact that the recent attacks on Chavez from the United States and liberal groups
um, Silas, liberal groups? Do you consider Pat Robertson a liberal? It isn't the liberal groups attacking Chavez is it?
35 - Silas Kain
Yes, Steve, attacks come from both sides. The liberal Human Rights Watch has complained about Chavez. Conservatives hate him because of his relationship with Castro and his obvious clout in oil exportation. Pat Robertson's approach to Chavez is purely economic in motivation regardless of what he has said.
36 - gonzo marx
just read it over again, Mr Nalle..and didn't see anything abotu price gouging...hence my previous statement..
but perhaps you are speaking abotu the "Taxes" bit? as in those corporations are now having to pay it...or that the living standard would raise to US and Euro levels due to the higher education/literacy level?
no matter...my basic points still stand ...Chavez was properly elected, the folks of Venezuela seem to be happy with him, therefor it is NOT the business of the US gov't to get involved for any reason, no matter how much oil companies or Pat Robertson might want him assasinated....
nuff said?
Excelsior!
37 - Mark Adams
gonzo marx, yes, some thoughts:
First off, Robertson did not encourage private parties to simply go off and murder people. He, rather offensively, suggested that the government, according to its laws, take action against Chavez (according to the vice president, Robertson was mistaken about the laws). His comments were stupid and hyperbolic. He apologized, rather lamely, but nevertheless, he apologized.
If I follow your argument, Howard Stern ought to be sent over to Iran for a stoning, because he advocates nuclear bombing of the entire region. Of course, I would have to ignore the hyperbolic nature of his speech, and I'm unwilling to do that.
This is not to justify what Robertson said, but it does fall under the right of a person to express politcal beliefs. I would have had greater difficulty with his comments had he encouraged private citizens to assassinate Chavez, or if he offered a reward. Then, he'd be liable for criminal pursuit--in America--and his license should be taken from him.
However, if I follow your argument to its conclusion, a citizen who argued that the U.S. should have assassinated Hitler would be a criminal, and we'd have to send him to Germany.
There is a distinction to be made. If you can't see the distinction, I can't help you. And if you are confusing my comments as support for Robertson, you are indeed confused.
38 - Steve S
If you are trying to rationalize Pat Robertson and are using Howard Stern as an example, you need to show proof that Howard Stern has devoted his life to the service of God, and the furtherance of God's principles. THAT is why Robertson is in a firestorm and Howard Stern isn't. Immediately after commenting about nuking the middle east, Howard Stern will interview albino midgets who wrestle in mud.
39 - Dave Nalle
>>no matter...my basic points still stand ...Chavez was properly elected, the folks of Venezuela seem to be happy with him, t<<
And my concern is that the situation of Venezuela is reaching the point where if the people are unhappy we're not going to find out, becuase they've been silenced by the Chavez regime.
Dave
40 - gonzo marx
i was concerned about that as well, but it seems unfounded...
i only have anecdotal reports..but i did just get off the phone from my companies south american sales rep...and he informed me that what is going on is quite similar to what we are having here in the US with the whole red/blue state thing...very polarized population...with all the orugh and tumble of south american politics and adding the multinational oil/business interests...
all in all, sounds like it is a Venezualen issue...and NOT a US one...unless of course you are into the whole neocon "pre-emptive", neo-colonialism bit...
Excelsior!
41 - Mark Adams
Steve S,
I'm not trying to rationalize Robertson's comments. I merely note that his comments were not criminal. Good grief, at least point to some law which Robertson broke. As for the Howard Stern comparison, I think they're both equally ridiculous. It doesn't matter what their religious beliefs are.
42 - Steve S
I don't think it is a crime. I'm pretty sure it's a crime to advocate death to our elected officials, isn't it? But I agree, I don't think it's illegal otherwise.
However, we as a society lose a whole lot, if with freedom of speech we throw accountability out with the bathwater. If there are no consequences to the things we say, then there is no distinction anymore between truth and lies.
I'm not talking legislative or legal consequences, but ones of character, societal condemnation, etc. And yeah, a lot of people are condemning him.
43 - John Bambenek
It's not a crime to say Bush should be killed... it's a crime to say *you* are going to do it.
44 - Janheram
Mr Nalle.
About your remark on Venezuela turning a Cuba II, I have to be honest and tell you that the only risk I see so far is of Cuba becoming a Venezuela II.
First of all, it would be stupid to go back in history and try repeat formulas already proved wrong by so many such as communism, capitalism and other distortions caused by our about-to-die modern era. What we are doing is trying to generate new answers by following the maxims of democracy. We do not want to drive all corporations out of our country (as somehow, you ended up understanding), instead, we're trying to establish a lawful relationship with them. They should pay taxes just like in any other democratic country. Unlike the United States, Venezuelan capitalism gives opportunity to any individual or cooperative to establish a small and successful corporation. The words “small” and “corporation” do not really go together in the wild capitalism of the fat few who rule the US. Media.
If you are implying that letting corporations operate for free in our territory by creating policies (minimum wage, etc) to favor them as it happens in many oppressed countries* whose presidents are not wished to be killed, then you are probably suggesting a dictatorship, of the sort that is not frown upon by corporations, which is not the answer either. Or maybe you are proposing to keep on following the current model that provides comfort to the privileged few and oppression to the rest.
The Venezuelan people, currently lead by Chavez, are willing to preserve the good things of capitalism while eliminating the worst. The new Venezuelan jurisdiction provides the right of ownership and that is one of the whys so many national corporations have stopped complaining and signed contracts with the government; only you haven’t seen that in the news, have you?.. Someone else --or maybe it was you- wrote that Chavez has silenced their people. I encourage the writer of that to think about our increasing registered voters during Chavez administration.
An ironic thing about all this is that most Venezuelans profess Christianity; in its real terms though; helping the widows, the elder and those in need. In the United States Christians seem to be silenced by an oppressive media regime that sets what being a Christian nation is; a permanent exporter of death.
I apologize to those who have sent good feedback for not addressing their issues. Unfortunately, I only have time “spread the word” and talk to those who are in need.
*
For an example of any of these countries, check the made-in ______ tab attached to every product you purchase. After that I encourage a reflection on why that product had such a good price. What democratic state can generate such cheap labor? Why aren’t these countries labeled terrorists as well for allowing human-abusing corporative monsters operate in their territories without any kind of regulation?
45 - Dave Nalle
>>i only have anecdotal reports..but i did just get off the phone from my companies south american sales rep...and he informed me that what is going on is quite similar to what we are having here in the US with the whole red/blue state thing...very polarized population...with all the orugh and tumble of south american politics and adding the multinational oil/business interests...<<
The key difference being that we're not rewriting the constitution and making it illegal to criticize the government or its 'elected' leader.
Dave
46 - Janheram
I forgot to add that the US should then be considered a terrorist state if they don't take legal action against Robertson; not that they weren't already at terrorist state, but now more than ever.
It is widely known how powerful and convincing media is, which is proven by the fact that only an elite gets to give their opinion. It is obvious that many of us here in this discussion do not blindly believe in what Robertson says. But I am sure that there IS an audience that follows that program and believe in their criteria, just as they follow the advertisement. What Pat is doing is introducing a topic that will get hotter with time (and with oil prices).
So it IS criminal to let ANYbody talk about the possibilities of killing ANYone on ANY kind of broadasting. Why is it criminal? Because such statements ARE convincing certain audience for an eventual assasination. Do you guys think that Pat Robertson doesn;t have ANYthing to do with Bush plans? Bush is giving money to Uribe (Colombian president) to invade Venezuelan territory with his paramilitary to terrorize people against Chavez. However they also use some of this money to supposedly spray some substance to eliminate coca plantations, which actually ends up killing ALL plantations and eventually starving people to death as well. That IS also criminal. But have you seen this on the news? Are you probably not believing it as you read because you still need a TV to tell you? What about these realities being silenced?
None of the plans that Bush have put in action (coup d'etat 2002- strike 2002& 2003 - endorsement to violent groups throught the National Endowment for Democracy- etc) have worked. And since Chavez has stood up and said "we're all running out of oil and it's not gonna be cheaper anymore" and back in 1999 "Why is our barrel of oil only $6, how much do we pay for a barrel of M&M's or a barrel of Coca-Cola", he is indeed someone who needs to be killed. The next step is using a phrase millions of times on TV until people get convinced. The phrase in this case: Chavez is a terrorist.
By the way, using Hitler to justify the calling for assasination doesn't make sense because Hitler's ideas were exporting death; unlike Chavez. If at all, mentioning Hitler should bring reflection in terms of how the US has exported death as much as Hitler would have dreamed. Has media silenced all the the US history of death exportation?
47 - Dave Nalle
>>About your remark on Venezuela turning a Cuba II, I have to be honest and tell you that the only risk I see so far is of Cuba becoming a Venezuela II.<<
Anything would be an improvement for Cuba, and Chavez does seem to be providing them with a certain amount of aid. Perhaps when Castro dies that will put them in a position to restore some degree of freedom there.
>>First of all, it would be stupid to go back in history and try repeat formulas already proved wrong by so many such as communism, capitalism and other distortions caused by our about-to-die modern era. <<
While communism has certainly failed - despite Chavez' outspoken support for it - capitalism is fundamental to human nature and exists in some form in every era and every society - and where it is repressed it reasserts itself in rather undesirable ways. Trying to suppress the fundamental human drive towards enterprise and social and financial advancement can only lead to oppression and disaster.
>>What we are doing is trying to generate new answers by following the maxims of democracy. We do not want to drive all corporations out of our country (as somehow, you ended up understanding), instead, we're trying to establish a lawful relationship with them. They should pay taxes just like in any other democratic country. <<
Then why is Chavez taking facilities away from corporations and putting them directly under military management?
>>Unlike the United States, Venezuelan capitalism gives opportunity to any individual or cooperative to establish a small and successful corporation. The words “small” and “corporation” do not really go together in the wild capitalism of the fat few who rule the US. Media.<<
Right, so as I said he's slitting the country's throat by making it inhospitable to international corporations.
>>If you are implying that letting corporations operate for free in our territory by creating policies (minimum wage, etc) to favor them as it happens in many oppressed countries*<<
When did I ever suggest that? What I am concerned about is the seizure of corporate assets and policies which will make it unlikely that international companies will ever invest in Venezuela, which will do a lot of harm to the country's economy.
>>whose presidents are not wished to be killed, then you are probably suggesting a dictatorship, of the sort that is not frown upon by corporations, which is not the answer either. <<
This makes no sense. Corporations do just fine when dealing with elected governments which respect their right to do business.
>>Or maybe you are proposing to keep on following the current model that provides comfort to the privileged few and oppression to the rest.<<
Creating opportunities for the poor and oppressed does not necessarily mean destroying or driving out the wealthy and the companies they work for. That's the road towards the chaos of Pol Pot's Cambodia.
>>The Venezuelan people, currently lead by Chavez, are willing to preserve the good things of capitalism while eliminating the worst. The new Venezuelan jurisdiction provides the right of ownership and that is one of the whys so many national corporations have stopped complaining and signed contracts with the government; only you haven’t seen that in the news, have you?.. Someone else --or maybe it was you- wrote that Chavez has silenced their people. I encourage the writer of that to think about our increasing registered voters during Chavez administration.<<
Are you familiar with the changes made to the constitution which make it illegal to criticize Chavez or the government? That's silencing the people.
>>In the United States Christians seem to be silenced by an oppressive media regime that sets what being a Christian nation is; a permanent exporter of death.<<
The united states is not a Christian nation, but we allow Christians - like Pat Robertson - freedom of speech. Venezuela may be a Christian nation, but freedom of speech is no longer allowed there.
Dave
48 - Janheram
Your absolutely right. The United States is not a Christian nation and its international policies prove it so. However, the pledge of alliegance does say "..under God.." is enough to infer that the United States IS a Christian nation, but as I said before it is only a "Christian" nation. The question is: should the US forget about Christianity in order to consistently continue exporting death and poverty or should they forget about death and poverty to consistently start behaving as Christian nation?
About Chavez silencing media, you have been misinformed and that's unfortunate. Your sources are not accurate. Media laws are (if you read them) very close to what an actual Christian nation would aim at. I encourage to be more resourceful when it comes to information.
Chavez has not expressed suport for communism. However he supports Cuba for Cuba is not poor because of it but because international US-related policies.
Your response to my message takes my opinion to an extreme that I don't mean. Perhaps this has to do with your evident modernist scope.
I can only encourage you to get more information. Perhaps it would help if you could gain access to sources in other languages; if you happen to speak another one other than English.
One other thing, your reverence for corporations is very evident. Your opinion seems to be affected by mainstream media. Mainstream media cause good people to want to think originally with a set of pre-determined premises.
Take a look at this and check the original sources. It is in English!
http://groups.google.com/group/Mision-Venezuela