Given the conflicts in Iraq, Sudan, and elsewhere, it is worth noting that the Red Cross named Colombia as the country with the most displaced persons. Somewhere between two and three million people have been forced to abandon their homes because of “threats, armed hostilities, and impressment.” The UN puts Colombia as second behind Sudan. Given the nature of the conflict, this occurs mostly in the countryside, and the poor rural population then moves in greater numbers to the cities, thereby sparking a host of other serious problems related to poverty.
It is very easy to point fingers based on political preferences. But this is the sort of issue that should be front and center of any U.S. aid package, and we should stop obsessing solely with record drug busts. Well, and if people in the U.S. would stop taking drugs in huge quantities, that would also help.
86 comments:
That's about 6% of Colombia's total population. Huge number! You are totally right.
"Well, and if people in the U.S. would stop taking drugs in huge quantities, that would also help."
Someone should explain that to Justin Delacour.
Someone should explain that to Justin Delacour.
Yeah, Paul. My occasional puffing of a joint is the source of narco-trafficking in the hemisphere. You're a true genius.
It is very easy to point fingers based on political preferences. But this is the sort of issue that should be front and center of any U.S. aid package, and we should stop obsessing solely with record drug busts.
I agree with Greg's point that finger-pointing doesn't solve the problem of mass displacement in Colombia, but neither does U.S. intervention in the country (as the record shows). The only real solution would be a negotiated settlement of the country's civil conflict.
"Yeah, Paul. My occasional puffing of a joint is the source of narco-trafficking in the hemisphere. You're a true genius."
Every individual drug user could say the same thing.
"The only real solution would be a negotiated settlement of the country's civil conflict."
Yeah, provided there were an actual partner for peace. There's no sign the FARC have any such inclinations, especially since they can count on Hugo when the going gets rough.
Yeah, provided there were an actual partner for peace.
That goes for both sides: the FARC and Uribe. The FARC certainly haven't shown the will for peace that they should have in the past, but neither has Uribe. In view of the fact that the recently released former hostage Consuelo Gonzalez says the Colombian military sabotaged the initial hostage release, Uribe hardly appears as a "partner for peace."
There's no sign the FARC have any such inclinations, especially since they can count on Hugo when the going gets rough.
I fundamentally disagree with that assessment. I think it's the other way around, in fact. The FARC is more likely to negotiate if it thinks other statesmen in the region will put pressure on Uribe to negotiate in good faith.
If Hugo Chavez can bring the FARC to the table, so much the better. Given the failure of any solution up to this point, I care much less about Chavez's rhetoric than I do about the results he can bring.
"The FARC certainly haven't shown the will for peace that they should have in the past, but neither has Uribe."
You are, of course, equating terrorists with the legitimate government of Colombia. As Uribe said, it's up to the FARC to let their hostages go and stop attacking towns and killing innocent people. Uribe's policies have been immensely successful in kicking the FARC's asses, driving them back into the jungle. Why should he stop when he's got them by the throat?
"In view of the fact that the recently released former hostage Consuelo Gonzalez says the Colombian military sabotaged the initial hostage release, Uribe hardly appears as a "partner for peace."
You mean Chavez' little propaganda show? The one where Ramon Rodriguez Chacin said to his guerilla buddy, “President Chavez wishes to let you know that we pay great attention to your struggle. Keep up your fighting spirit and your force. You can count on us”.
"The FARC is more likely to negotiate if it thinks other statesmen in the region will put pressure on Uribe to negotiate in good faith."
Again, your moral equivalence is positively revolting but unsurprising. But at least you don't deny the fact that your hero Chavez is supporting the band of murderers and kidnappers who pretend to be fighting on behalf of the Colombian people.
You mean Chavez' little propaganda show?
No, Rush, I'm referring to Consuelo Gonzalez's statements that the Colombian army was bombing the area designated for the initial hostage release at the same time that Uribe was claiming it wasn't. Gonzalez's statements have been confirmed by two Argentine dailies and the largest Spanish-language newswire in the world. Can you read Spanish, Rush?
at least you don't deny the fact that your hero Chavez is supporting the band of murderers and kidnappers who pretend to be fighting on behalf of the Colombian people.
No, Rush. Try learning to be honest. What I say is that Chavez advocates negotiations and expects the Colombian government as well as the FARC to negotiate in good faith. You can spout Jeane-Kirkpatrick-style drivel about "moral equivalence" all you want, but the bottom line is that your man Uribe has little moral authority on these questions given his own shady history.
"..at the same time that Uribe was claiming it wasn't. Gonzalez's statements have been confirmed by two Argentine dailies and the largest Spanish-language newswire in the world. Can you read Spanish, Rush?"
Who gives a shit? Good for the Colombian government if they thought they had a chance to wipe out some more terrorists. The hostage release, while great news for the families, was a propaganda show meant to make Chavez and FARC look good(with help from Oliver Stone) and make Uribe look bad. It blew up in their faces when it turned out they didn't even have the boy.
"No, Rush"
More of that patented Delacour rapier wit!
"Try learning to be honest. What I say is that Chavez advocates negotiations and expects the Colombian government as well as the FARC to negotiate in good faith. "
Chavez can blow it out his ass. He's in no position to make any demands upon how the Colombian government deals with the plague of Marxist guerillas in Colombia. Chavez should be worrying about fixing the monumental problems he has caused in Venezuela. Instead, he has a long history of harboring and supporting the murderous guerillas who are despised by Colombians.
"You can spout Jeane-Kirkpatrick-style drivel about "moral equivalence" all you want.."
You can spout typical Leftist moral equivalence all you want but the cop is not the same as criminal. The fireman is not the same as the arsonist. Al Qaeda is not the same as the US military.
"..is that your man Uribe has little moral authority on these questions given his own shady history."
He's got the moral authority given to him by the overwhelming majority of the Colombian people, unlike your Marxist terrorist pals who are almost unanimously hated by the Colombian people.
Degemon,
do you mean EFE by largest Spanish-language newswire in the world?
Moral authority checkmate:
http://www.semana.com/wf_InfoArticulo.aspx?idArt=108988
"Nunca antes un jefe de Estado, según el Gallup Poll, había logrado un nivel tan alto en la opinión favorable. Además, el 81 por ciento aplaude su gestión. Entre tanto, la imagen desfavorable en Colombia del presidente Chávez ascendió a un 76 por ciento."
Heh. The Colombian people aint no fools.
do you mean EFE by largest Spanish-language newswire in the world?
Indeed.
And apparently Paul thinks it's just a-okay for Uribe to jeopardize the lives of hostages at the very same time that he claims he's trying to facilitate their release.
I guess there's no shortage of ultra-rightist Machiavellianism in the blogosphere, but it's a bit surprising to see it rear its ugly head here.
"And apparently Paul thinks it's just a-okay for Uribe to jeopardize the lives of hostages at the very same time that he claims he's trying to facilitate their release."
Actually, Chavez was claiming he was trying to facilitate their release. Uribe's efforts have always been to stamp out the Marxist terrorists who infest Colombia. He was pretty much excluded from the Chavez/FARC propaganda show.
"I guess there's no shortage of ultra-rightist Machiavellianism in the blogosphere, but it's a bit surprising to see it rear its ugly head here."
When Justin runs out of arguments, and he does this rather quickly, he resorts to calling his opponent a fascist. I'm not against name-calling in general, and even do it myself, but it isn't a substitute for facts. Oh well, I'd rather be with the Colombian people, who gave Uribe even higher approval ratings(80%) after the hostage release, than be an apologist for the Marxist murderers.
More fascinating tidbits from the Gallup poll released today that just devastates Justin's credibility on all matters Colombia. I have the breakdown in pdf if anyone wants it:
Uribe: 80% approval
Chavez: 76% disapproval
United States: 50% approval
Carlos Gavira: 31% approval
Piedad Cordoba: 63% disapproval
Uribe's respect of human rights: 77% approval
Colombian military: 80% approval
FARC: 96% disapproval
ELN: 95% disapproval
Paracos: 93% disapproval
Plan Colombia: 67% approval
Clearly, the Colombian people are overwhelmingly more in step with my "ultra-rightist" outlook than with gringo Bolivarian wannabees who fantasize about the glorious revolucion from the safety of their dorm rooms.
Get your facts straight, Paul. Uribe claimed to be working to facilitate the initial hostage release. He let Venezuelan helicopters into the country and claimed that the Colombian army was standing down in the area where the initial hostage release was to take place.
The only problem is that Consuelo Gonzalez's testimony corroborates the FARC's version of events (that the the Colombian army was bombing the area where the hostage release was to take place) and refutes Uribe's claims.
"Uribe claimed to be working to facilitate the initial hostage release.He let Venezuelan helicopters into the country and claimed that the Colombian army was standing down in the area where the initial hostage release was to take place."
He went along with the circus for political reasons. His role was passive at best, as your description of his role demonstrates.
"The only problem is that Consuelo Gonzalez's testimony corroborates the FARC's version of events (that the the Colombian army was bombing the area where the hostage release was to take place) and refutes Uribe's claims."
You apparently think this is some blockbuster of a story. Again, I say even if that's true( and there could be explanations beyond the word of a hostage who wasn't privy to all info, and the word of FARC savages) who gives a shit? The big story to come out the Chavez/FARC freakshow, besides the release itself, is just how in bed are Chavez and the FARC terrorists.
Again, I'm on the same page as the "ultra-rightist" Colombian people who overwhelmingly reject your worldview:
Uribe: 80% approval
Chavez: 76% disapproval
United States: 50% approval
Carlos Gavira: 31% approval
Piedad Cordoba: 63% disapproval
Uribe's respect of human rights: 77% approval
Colombian military: 80% approval
FARC: 96% disapproval
ELN: 95% disapproval
Paracos: 93% disapproval
Plan Colombia: 67% approval
It's quite clear Colombia has no use for Chavez and his interference in Colombian matters, and even more clear how hated the guerillas are.
Thank you Degemon.
I thought so. Since EFE is so unreliable I thought you would use them as a source. Not only the don't check facts, their Spanish is hopeless (regardless of their origin they can't put a line together).
Tell me, do you speak Spanish?
Tell me, do you speak Spanish?
Uh, how exactly could I not know Spanish if I translated Consuelo Gonzalez's statements from the Spanish-language press? (And, by the way, her statements don't just appear in EFE.)
You apparently think this is some blockbuster of a story. Again, I say even if that's true( and there could be explanations beyond the word of a hostage who wasn't privy to all info, and the word of FARC savages) who gives a shit?
Any non-fascist with an ethical bone in his or her body gives a shit. If Uribe says he's working to facilitate a hostage release but simultaneously permits the bombing of the area where the release is supposed to take place, this indicates to us that the man is clearly not to be trusted.
If you consider that a translation I suppose you speak the language.
I just wanted to know how dissociated you were. I will admit here, you are not that dissociated, you are just plainly wrong.
"Any non-fascist with an ethical bone in his or her body gives a shit."
Hee, Justin calls me a fascist again! Your professors would be proud!
"If Uribe says he's working to facilitate a hostage release but simultaneously permits the bombing of the area where the release is supposed to take place.."
If it's true then it could be Uribe's definition of facilitation.
Again, who cares? On the other hand, if Chavez says he's working to facilitate a hostage release but is really orchestrating the facade as a campaign of distraction, propaganda, and collusion with FARC terrorists,this indicates to us that the man is clearly not to be trusted.
"..this indicates to us that the man is clearly not to be trusted."
80% of the Colombian people vociferously disagree with that sentiment. The "us" in your statement must be the dorm room revolutionaries. And if anyone is not to be trusted, and 76% of the Colombian people do not, it's Chavez and his complicity with the FARC terrorists. But you don't even give a shit about that 'cuz you have such a man crush on him.
80% of the Colombian people vociferously disagree with that sentiment.
In a country where journalists can't investigate allegations of Uribe's past ties to the Medellin Cartel without being threatened, polls ought to be taken with a large grain of salt. If I were in Colombia, I would think twice about responding honestly to some stanger who calls me on the phone or comes knocking on my door.
That said, I do think Uribe has majority support in Colombia, but it's also true that Colombian media keep the population in the dark about much of what goes on there. Where in the Colombian media has anyone made an issue of Consuelo Gonzalez's statements that the Colombian army was bombing the area where the intial hostage release was to take place?
If most Colombians hear little more than state propaganda, many will naturally believe the only version of events that they hear.
"In a country where journalists can't investigate allegations of Uribe's past ties to the Medellin Cartel without being threatened, polls ought to be taken with a large grain of salt."
Just about every Colombian knows all about the allegations. They also get to hear Uribe refute the allegations.
"If I were in Colombia, I would think twice about responding honestly to some stanger who calls me on the phone or comes knocking on my door."
I'm sure you base that on all your experiences on your many trips to Colombia, right? My wife voted for Uribe twice, and so did most of her friends.
"..but it's also true that Colombian media keep the population in the dark about much of what goes on there."
You just pull these allegations out of your ass. You think you know more about what goes on in Colombia than the average Colombian?? Your perspective comes from what you read in your Marxist textbooks and websites.
"Where in the Colombian media has anyone made an issue of Consuelo Gonzalez's statements that the Colombian army was bombing the area where the intial hostage release was to take place?"
You keep going back to this trivial allegation like it's some huge conspiracy. Kidnappings in general are down by well over 70% since Uribe took office. The increased security and economic upswing are something Colombians feel and witness on a daily basis. They're in a better position to understand the situation on the ground than you are up in your dorm room smoking weed.
"If most Colombians hear little more than state propaganda, many will naturally believe the only version of events that they hear."
If the Dorm Room Revolutionaries read and hear little more than pro-Marxist, pro-guerilla propaganda, many will naturally believe the only version of events that they hear.
You never answered the question, Paul.
Where in the Colombian media has anyone made an issue of Consuelo Gonzalez's statements that the Colombian army was bombing the area where the intial hostage release was to take place?
They haven't made an issue of it because it isn't a big issue, even if it's true. Idiot Chavez ties to the FARC are a big issue. Uribe's amazing counterinsurgency success is a big issue. If he was bombing the area then most Colombians hope he killed alot of terrorists while doing it.
Besides, there are alot of suspicious things about the Gonzalez situation.
Now where are those pictures of all your trips to Colombia?
They haven't made an issue of it because it isn't a big issue, even if it's true.
Oh, I see. So somehow it's not an issue if the Colombian army was bombing the area where the initial hostage release was to take place. Even though Uribe explicitly stated that the army wasn't bombing area, the apparent fact that it was bombing the area is somehow more relevant to Argentines than to Colombians.
You're a genius, Paul.
"So somehow it's not an issue if the Colombian army was bombing the area where the initial hostage release was to take place."
Yep, don't care anymore than you apparently do that Chavez and the guerillas are allies. The hostages were released unharmed, weren't they? Uribe has proven he knows what he's doing and 80% of Colombians agree. If it is true I hope they killed plenty of your FARC pals.
Got any other allegations nobody cares about?
Got any other allegations nobody cares about?
No, Paul, civilized people do care about these allegations, which are backed up with hard testimony from the released hostages.
Degemon,
Your view of Colombians is paternalistic, condescending and arrogant.Since Colombian's don't agree with your political views then you consider them dumb. You sound like a petulant gringo.
Your view of Colombians is paternalistic, condescending and arrogant.
Why? Because I don't use public opinion polls as my litmus test of what is right?
As of 2004, 70% of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11. If the evidence doesn't support that hypothesis, would it be "paternalistic, condescending and arrogant" to suggest that perhaps that majority of Americans was mistaken?
Why? Because you assume Colombians know less about our own country than you know. Because you assume that we are manipulated by our own media. Because you assume we support the wrong President.
You think your views are better than those of most Colombians. You are not superior. Go home and stop insulting Colombians.
I respect your country and don’t think I know more than your people.
If you think your countrymen are wrong then focus on them and stop intruding.
If you think your countrymen are wrong then focus on them and stop intruding.
Oh, I see, anonymous. So now I'm the "intruder." Well, if you and your ilk want to end gringo "intrusions" in your country, why don't you stop begging Uncle Sam for millions and millions in military "aid"? If you're interested in ending the gringo intrusion, you can start there.
And you do it again.
That is negotiated, wanted help.
Do you think we don't know what's going on? Stop patronizing us.
Arrogant and intrusive.
You don't have a clue about life here but you feel superior.
We dispise the FARC and ELN.
We admire Uribe.
We appreciate American help.
We do not appreciate grinGOs patronizing us.
We do not appreciate grinGOs patronizing us.
Then don't beg for our taxpayer dollars, genius.
Entonces usted lo acepta. Good. You know you are a gringo who feels more than Colombians and have the right to tell us what's going on.
Petulant.
We admire Uribe.
"We"?
Uh, there are plenty of Colombians who don't admire Uribe. Otherwise courageous people like Gustavo Petro wouldn't get elected to the Colombian Senate.
There you go. We do have a democracy. So stop telling us we are wrong because we like Uribe.
¿Qué sabe el burro de pasta de dientes?
We do have a democracy.
You'll have a democracy when your president stops denouncing critical Colombian journalists and prompting death threats upon them. You'll have a democracy when your country stops killing more trade unionists than any other in the world.
Try workin' on that first, big fella. Then we'll talk.
¿Qué tiene que ver el culo con las pestañas gringo?
You think we have democracy because we elect Petro but no, we don't have it because you don't like Uribe.
Where did you learn democracy, in America or Rumania?
Your arrogancy have no limits.
Wow, that's pure genius, anonymous. Anybody who thinks the rights of trade unionists and journalists have anything to do with democracy must have been brought up in Romania, or something.
Do you just make this shit up, smart guy?
Culo is not the same as pestaña
why do you think we elected Uribe then?
and why did we elect Petro as well?
why do you think we elected Uribe then?
The reasons behind Uribe's election are not pertinent to the question of whether or not Colombia qualifies as a democracy.
Fujimori was elected too. Few would suggest that Peru was democratic under Fujimori, though.
You see, democracy is a system that involves both elections and a series of constitutional rights that must be upheld by the state.
If critical journalists don't have rights to write as they see fit without being denounced by the president and then threatened with death, you don't have a democracy. If trade unionists don't have rights to freely associate and engage in collective action without being threatened with death, you don't have a democracy.
Until people like you and Paul get serious about supporting the rights of journalists and trade unionists, you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim that you're supporters of democracy.
So you maintain than electing Uribe is a mistake made by most Colombians. You always know better and we are third world ignorant people manipulated by media.
The issues with journalists and trade unionists are well known and covered in Colombian. We all agree that they need to be solved. Indeed, the situation in both cases has improved substantially under Uribe (trade unionists killings were at least threefold before Uribe and the press was a lot more controlled but you wouldn't know that). Not only that, the country is safer and the economy is more stable.
Again, you think we are dumb and you have the right to tell us what to think.
Paternalistic, arrogant and self centered.
Just to understand your standards. Do you think there is a democracy in the US?
"..civilized people do care about these allegations, which are backed up with hard testimony from the released hostages."
So then you call the Colombian people uncivilized. Well, civilized people don't ally themselves with murdering scum like the FARC.
"Then don't beg for our taxpayer dollars, genius."
We OWE Colombia our help because THEY suffer the ramifications of drug users like yourself. The guerillas and other narcotraffickers would have been wiped out a long time ago and who knows how many Colombians would be alive and enjoying a more prosperous country.
"If critical journalists don't have rights to write as they see fit without being denounced by the president and then threatened with death, you don't have a democracy."
So Chavez doesn't denounce journalists who criticize him? Democracy is a two-way street. Uribe has just as much right to respond to his accusers. He's not the one threatening him with death, though you imply it quite dishonestly.
"If trade unionists don't have rights to freely associate and engage in collective action without being threatened with death, you don't have a democracy."
Even the trade unionist own statistics demonstrate the unionists murders(like the murder rate in general) have gone down dramatically since Uribe took office. This in spite of the fact that many of them are aligned with the guerillas.
"Until people like you and Paul get serious about supporting the rights of journalists and trade unionists, you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim that you're supporters of democracy."
Justin says this despite the fact he has a huge man-crush on Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan thug who supports the FARC, Fidel Castro, and is actually destroying democracy in Venezuela.
Anonymous, understand Justin is just a Dorm Room Revolutionary. He gets his talking points from his Marxist textbooks and guerilla sympathizing websites.
Degemon received money from the Bolivarian government. He is a propagandist.
So Chavez doesn't denounce journalists who criticize him?
He's denounced some, but the difference is that those journalists don't come under death threat as a result. Those journalists go on bashing Chavez as they please. I've never seen a more virulently oppositional media than Venezuela's.
The same does not hold true in Colombia. After Uribe denounces a journalist, the death threats follow. That has a chilling effect upon journalists. The Miami New Times sums up the situation as follows:
"These days, many reporters avoid criticizing the government. Why risk being murdered? More than 3000 cases of self-censorship were recently documented in the country."
He's not the one threatening him with death...
That's irrelevant to the question of whether journalists are able to exercise their rights. If Uribe's denunciations prompt others' death threats upon the journalists and the state is unwilling or unable to ensure the safety of those journalists, the journalists have effectively lost their rights and Colombia becomes less democratic for it.
The issues with journalists and trade unionists are well known and covered in Colombian. We all agree that they need to be solved. Indeed, the situation in both cases has improved substantially under Uribe
No matter if the situation has improved, Colombia still has the highest number of murders of trade unionists in the world. No country with the highest rate of murders of trade unionists in the world can honestly call itself democratic.
And, anonymous, please try learning to debate. My point certainly isn't that you can't vote for Uribe. My point is that you can't call your country democratic as long as it fails to guarantee the rights of journalists and trade unionists. And you especially can't call your country democratic when your president is complicit in the violations of some such rights.
"Those journalists go on bashing Chavez as they please."
Unless he shuts down their media outlet.
"These days, many reporters avoid criticizing the government. Why risk being murdered? More than 3000 cases of self-censorship were recently documented in the country."
Documented by whom? Some Leftist NGO? The New Times is a far Left rag, hardly representative of objective journalism. The author of that piece demonstrates as much by denouncing Uribe as "Bush Buddy" in the opening subtitle. Anyway, the idea that Uribe isn't criticized by the Colombian media, or that Colombians in general are afraid to criticize him, can only be held by someone who knows jack about the country. Enter Justin Delacour...
"That's irrelevant to the question of whether journalists are able to exercise their rights."
You apparently have just a handful of talking points you repeatedly pull out of your ass.
Uribe calls out a few of the more slanderous journalists. Some of them receive death threats(so do journalists in the United States, on occasion.)
"No matter if the situation has improved, Colombia still has the highest number of murders of trade unionists in the world."
heh, it just doesn't matter if marked progress has been made under Uribe! This comes from the Dorm Room Revolutionary from his warm cocoon in the United States.
"No country with the highest rate of murders of trade unionists in the world can honestly call itself democratic."
According to whom? Alot of those trade unionists should have stayed out of bed with the guerillas and they'd still be breathing.
Lucky for Uribe, Paul the open apologist for the murders of Colombian trade unionists isn't Uribe's U.S. spokesperson.
Delacour,
You are so wrong I have pena ajena.
-You quoted Miami’s New Times. Here goes a story about Patricia Poleo, a "Venezuelan journalist and political activist, accused of MURDER" from the same source:
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/
2007-02-01/
news/the-fugitive/
-About three months ago, after pissing Chavez; Roger Santodomingo's son handed his dad a letter he brought from school. It was a DEATH TREAT. That is beyond sadistic, to use someone’s son as a courier for a death treat. The day after, Santodomingo's car was BURNED to flames. It worked. He resigned and it’s not practicing journalism any more.
-On December 07 President Chavez gave a press conference surrounded by his top army officers in army uniform. He then pointed his finger at the camera and said: "Hernán Lugo, tu estás lleno de mierda. Lo que tu escribiste es mierda". Hernán Lugo had written about the lost referendum. Chavez didn't like what he said. This is the most aggressive behavior against a journalist I have seen in my life. All top army generals to insult a journalist and call him shit. Man, give me any other example from other place in the word that compares.
-Chavez closed RCTV, never forget that.
-"The creation and funding of official propaganda media, the judicial and legal HARASSMENT of media and individual journalists, the CONSTANT ATTACKS UPON JOURNALISTS, the lack of access to official sources of information, the DISCRIMINATION in the placement of official advertising, and the constant confrontation towards journalists and media were clear signs of that strategy of coercion of freedom of the press."
IAPA mission press release, 2007. That is not what I think nor what you think, that comes from IAPA.
- We Colombians know that our democracy have flaws. But we think is getting better due to Uribe’s work. Our democracy is more open, the country is safer, there are less killings of unionists, there is more freedom of the press, and there are less kidnaps. All of this happened because of Uribe. That is why he has consistently performed as the Latin American president with the highest approval rating. You don’t like Uribe, OK, you are free to work for Chavez, but do not intrude in my country.
-You always do the same:
1) Attack Uribe out of the blue because you know that people admire him and will defend him, therefore the subject will be changed.
2) You always go mad when people don’t follow your spin. Then you accuse them of not debating properly. This is not a communist party meeting. People are free to debate whatever way they think is better.
Now two questions, please don’t evade them:
-Did you, or did you note receive payment from the Bolivarian government for work related with media?
-Do you think that there is democracy in your country? If you have the toupé of insult my democracy, you should at least have the guts to say what you think about your own.
Degemon, Why do you have this obsession with Paul? I am here to listen.
And with Boz. You seem to have a lot of hate inside you. Why is that my friend?
We could argue over comparisons of Colombian and Venezuelan media 'til the cows come home, but the only thing that would put that debate to rest would be to simply compare the quantity of oppositional media in the two countries. I'm completely confident that any comparative analysis would reveal that there are far far more venues for oppositional journalistic expression in Venezuela than in Colombia. If you think I'm wrong, show me the evidence. Otherwise, we can just lay this debate to rest for now until a real comparative analysis is presented.
-Did you, or did you note receive payment from the Bolivarian government for work related with media?
Given that you've already asked --and I've already answered-- this question on multiple occasions, you're obviously attempting to use the question for rhetorical purposes because you don't know how to debate.
Yes, my grandstanding moronic friend, I worked for Venezuela's Ministry of Information and Communication for one month in the summer of 2005, and I was paid a whopping $700 for that work.
So what?
-Do you think that there is democracy in your country? If you have the toupé of insult my democracy, you should at least have the guts to say what you think about your own.
You don't live in a democracy, anonymous. No country is a perfect democracy, but yours is alone in the hemisphere in forcing critical journalists into exile by way of death threats and killing more trade unionists than any other country in the world.
So, please, just shut up and try working to make your country a democracy if you're really so concerned about that. I hate to break this to you, but all your spinning in the blogosphere isn't gonna make your country a democracy. You see, democracy requires that people's basic rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association be respected. Your country has a long ways to go on that score, so try puttin' your money where your mouth is, big fella.
Do not evade the question:
-Do you think that there is democracy in your country?
-Tell us the whole story: Have you ever received more payments from the Bolivarian government (hotels, tickets, contributions...?
-Have you work indirectly for the Venezuelan governement (hired by a third party hired by Venezuela)?
Degemon,
Breath. Anger won't solve anything my friend. Why do you have Buz and Paul?
"The only thing that would put that debate to rest would be to simply compare the quantity of oppositional media in the two countries."
Very well. I know some numbers by heart:
85% of Venezuelan TV channels are directly controlled by the government. Colombia's government controls less that 20% of the TV channels.
More than 3000 radio stations in Venezuela are controlled directly by the government. Colombia government founds less than 100 radio stations.
Up to February 2006 Venezuelan's Government cadenas summed 1.339. This is a world record and excludes Alo Presidente. Colombia's didn't reach 200 hours since Uribe got over.
The printed media picture I don't have that clear but on top of my mind is 50/50.
Now note that when you say Government controlled in Venezuela that means propaganda.
Now don't change the rules. Debate if you can.
Whe you visited Venezuela, who paid your expenses?
-Do you think that there is democracy in your country?
Relative to Colombia, yes. Fortunately, the United States hasn't yet gotten to the point where trade unionists are murdered by state-affiliated paramilitaries or where journalists are forced into exile by way of death threat. I hope we never get to that point.
-Tell us the whole story: Have you ever received more payments from the Bolivarian government (hotels, tickets, contributions...?
The only payment I've ever received from the Venezuelan government was the $700 payment for my one-month stint of work in the aforementioned ministry in the summer of 2005.
Now, who the fuck are you to be grilling me about any of this? If you want to ask questions, try presenting your name, ghoul.
-Have you work indirectly for the Venezuelan governement (hired by a third party hired by Venezuela)?
Nope. My soul source of income comes from my work as a part-time instructor at my university.
You see, unlike you, I don't have anything to hide.
You conveniently forgot to mention your commission by the Venezuelan propaganda ministry of 2004.
You acted as an "international observer" and were paid by the Venezuelan government.
Your experience in the subject was null.
I can't give you my name. I am affraid of you. You are friends with the FARC and Chavez.
You proposed a comparison between Venezuela's and Colombia's media. Do not change the subject.
Very well. I know some numbers by heart
You don't know shit by heart, and your numbers are complete garbage. It is well-known that Venezuelan radio is mostly in the hands of the opposition.
The fact that most Colombian media are privately owned tells us nothing about whether they provide a venue of oppositional journalistic expression. Most private owners of Colombian media are in bed with Uribe, just as most private owners of Venezuelan media are in bed with the the old establishment and the Venezuelan opposition.
When I refer to comparative analysis, I'm looking for accredited studies, not some garbage that "anonymous" pulls out of his ass.
Degemon,
If you are so sure then give me facts.
My number's are based in Marcelino Bisbal's research on the subject.
You don't seem to have any numbers.
You conveniently forgot to mention your commission by the Venezuelan propaganda ministry of 2004.
Bullshit. I paid for every penny of that trip, and I have the receipts to prove it. You're a slimy little liar, anonymous.
My number's are based in Marcelino Bisbal's research on the subject.
Oh really? Well, let's see the link to the study, then.
Or am I supposed to believe that you just so happen to have a book by Marcelino Bisbal at your side?
Stop lying, anonymous.
Here a link to an interview with some of the findings. I quoted by heart but was really close to the actual numbers. Note that private media can also be pro Chavez (El Mundo for instance):
http://politica.eluniversal.com/2007/
05/28/
pol_art_bisbal-senala-que-
se_301470.shtml
And here is where I learned about your 2004 trip. It says literally that your services were paid by the government.
But if you say you paid for it. I will believe you:
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/
200412291334
By the way. Chavez's image obsession doesn't stop in Venezuela. He has invested $70M per year to improve his image in the US:
http://www.adnmundo.com/
contenidos/politica/
chavez_gasta_millones_.html
This money funds a lot of consent.
Checked out the El Universal report. (For those who aren't acquainted with El Universal, it's the paper of Caracas' moneyed establishment, and it's rabidly anti-Chavez).
Now, there's little actual comparative analysis in the El Universal article. Bisbal never gives us any overall figures about how much of the media is aligned with Chavismo and how much of the media is aligned with the opposition. He does tell us, however, that the private sector still controls most Venezuelan media, which invalidates his previous assertion that the state has monopolized media. His figures clearly don't show that.
And as for the press, most of it is in opposition hands. In fact, there isn't even a major Chavista daily in Caracas. Ultimas Noticias caters to a somewhat Chavista readership, but its owner and most of its columnists are in the opposition. And, of course, the opposition controls El Universal, El Nacional and Tal Cual. (Diario Vea, the lone Chavista daily in Caracas, could hardly even be described as a newspaper. It's, like, 16 pages long.)
Bisbal laments that Televen and Venevision have moved in the direction of non-partisan journalism, but let's put Venezuela's media panorama into comparative perspective. The opposition controls Globovision (which has a public frequency in Caracas and broadcasts via cable everywhere else) and RCTV (which broadcasts via cable). Does Colombia have an opposition news channel? No. Does the United States have an opposition news channel? No.
Obviously, the Venezuelan opposition has a hell of a lot more media power than Colombia's political opposition.
If any Colombian newspaper were half as nasty to Uribe as El Universal is to Chavez, all of its journalists would have been threatened with death. That's the difference between Colombia and Venezuela.
Aleksander Boyd at VCrisis is a slimy fucking liar. If the government had paid for my 2004 trip, I would have gladly told you so, but the fact of the matter is that I paid for every penny of it (including hotel and food).
"He does tell us, however, that the private sector still controls most Venezuelan media, which invalidates his previous assertion that the state has monopolized media."
The actual quote: “"en el aspecto CUANTITATIVO, el sector privado tiene mayoría de medios, al menos en el caso de la television, PERO pero hay canales de alcance nacional que han sido neutralizados". To then say:
“La sintonía en todo el país estaba repartida antes de ayer entre RCTV y Venevisión con 70%, Televen con 10%, VTV también con 10%, Globovisión entre 3 y 4% y el resto de los canales entre 6 y 7%, pero según el informe de la Misión Electoral de la Unión Europea, con motivo de las elecciones de 2006, Venevisión dedicó 84% del tiempo, dentro del espacio de información política, a la figura del presidente de la República Hugo Chávez, y TAN SOLO 16% a la de la oposición; mientras Televen dedicó 68% a Chávez y su campaña, por 32% de la candidatura opositora.”
Good try
Also Degemon, since you are so well acquainted with the subject. Why don't you entertain the audience with an account of the Chavez-Cisneros and Chavez-Capriles alliance.
Venevision non partisan. You are funy.
Also Degemon, since you are so well acquainted with the subject. Why don't you entertain the audience with an account of the Chavez-Cisneros and Chavez-Capriles alliance.
Venevision non partisan. You are funny. That is why I really believed you were paid by Chavez.
Give me facts, numbers not your opinion about media you don’t even know.
Also, all you are giving is opinions. Give me facts. Numbers.
"Does Colombia have an opposition news channel? No. Does the United States have an opposition news channel? No."
This is not about pro opposition and pro government channels. I hope that was the discussion! This is about government (which is not the same as public in Venezuela) and private media. There are pro Chavez private media (Venevision, El Mundo, Ultimas Noticias) and pro opposition private media (El Universal, El Nacional, Globovision). ALL private TV channels with national coverage support Chavez.
Degemon is so biased that he includes RCTV!
The unbalance in Venezuela is so bad that the government competes with the private sector in media ownership. In the one area that matters the most (TV broadcast) the government is the only entity with national coverage.
No other country in the hemisphere, with the exception of Cuba, controls more media outlets than Venezuela's.
"Fortunately, the United States hasn't yet gotten to the point where trade unionists are murdered by state-affiliated paramilitaries or where journalists are forced into exile by way of death threat. I hope we never get to that point. "
Justin has his two talking points and he's sticking to them!!
He doesn't give a shit about the rest of Colombia, the fact that murders across all categories have dropped dramatically since Uribe took office. Same with kidnappings, and crime in general. He doesn't care that life is getting generally better for Colombians since Uribe was elected.
The only thing he cares about are journalists who attack Uribe, and trade unionists, many of whom allied with the FARC, as is Justin.
Hey Anon, thanks for making Justin look like the Chavez lackey we all know he is. And thanks for the media study. Altough I figured it was possible Chavez was criticized overall more than Uribe because Chavez is steadily destroying Venezuela while Uribe is bringing Colombia back from the precipice.
Sometimes facts are just facts.
I've given you facts, anonymous. And the fact of the matter is that you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate.
This is not about pro opposition and pro government channels.
Oh really? So the fact that Colombia has no opposition channel is of no consequence? I'd like to see what the Colombian opposition has to say about that.
The Colombian opposition would die to have as much media power as the Venezuelan opposition. (The U.S. opposition to Bush would also die to have as much media power as the Venezuelan opposition).
Once again, anonymous, you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate. Can you name one major Colombian newspaper whose editorial policy is to actively oppose the Uribe government? (I could name a whole bunch of major Venezuelan newspapers whose editorial policy is to actively oppose the Chavez government).
Can you name one Colombian television station whose editorial policy is to actively oppose the Uribe government? (I've already named two Venezuelan channels who actively oppose Chavez).
"The Colombian opposition would die to have as much media power as the Venezuelan opposition."
Heh, once again Venezuela's opposition is based on the fact that Chavez is such a f'ing disaster.
Does anyone believe Justin paid for his trip to Venezuela? Do we have the makings of a Maletagate for the Dorm Room Revolutionary?
Heh, once again Venezuela's opposition is based on the fact that Chavez is such a f'ing disaster.
If Chavez is "such a f'ing disaster," why was he re-elected by a 63-37 margin in the 2006 presidential election?
The private media's opposition to Chavez is based on the fact that most of the old economic establishment that controls the private media sees Chavez as a threat to its interests.
Media support of Uribe in Colombia is driven by the very same factor. The old Colombian ruling class that controls most media correctly sees Uribe as a protector of its interests.
"If Chavez is "such a f'ing disaster," why was he re-elected by a 63-37 margin in the 2006 presidential election?"
For many of the same reasons John Gotti was so popular in his old Brooklyn neighborhood.
"The private media's opposition to Chavez is based on the fact that most of the old economic establishment that controls the private media sees Chavez as a threat to its interests."
He is a threat to economic interests. Any objective reading of the statistics details that.
He's also a threat to people who like to breathe. Under his stewardship, Caracas has become more dangerous than Baghdad is now.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=284342916957156&kw=caracas
"Media support of Uribe in Colombia is driven by the very same factor."
It's driven more by the dramatic and demonstrable improvement of Colombia's position since Uribe took the helm. But I can see your point that anyone with an economic interest would support Uribe. Makes sense, he's good for Colombia's economy.
We OWE Colombia our help because THEY suffer the ramifications of drug users like yourself.
Oh really? My one joint every two months is causing Colombians (?) to suffer?
Last I checked, we stopped importing "Colombian gold" almost thirty years ago because the Colombians went on to more lucrative things. In my entire adult life, I cannot recall even hearing about marijuana imported from Colombia. Wherever I've been, the pot was said to be homegrown or imported from Mexico.
But if you and the Drug Czar say my occasional puffing of a joint is causing the Colombians great suffering, I'll be sure to never take a puff again, Paul. Scouts honor.
"Oh really? My one joint every two months is causing Colombians (?) to suffer?"
All drug users could make similiar claims. Their own specific habits don't fuel the traffickers all by themselves...ergo they're not responsible.
"Wherever I've been, the pot was said to be homegrown or imported from Mexico."
Ever hear of the violent drug gangs who kill the border police in Mexico? Those same drug gangs have ties to Colombian narcotraffickers. The money is fungible, the blood is not.
"But if you and the Drug Czar say my occasional puffing of a joint is causing the Colombians great suffering, I'll be sure to never take a puff again, Paul. Scouts honor."
Pretty sure you're lying about that, just like you're probably lying about your trip to Venezuela.
Go away, Paul.
Post a Comment