Tuesday, June 05, 2007

The Difference Between Musharraf and Chavez

An Update on the "New Axis of Evil"TM
An Update on the "So-called War on Terror"TM
An Update on the "Worst President in US History"TM
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
I don't know if this is funny or sad. I know I'm disturbed by it.

In case you haven't heard, the "liberal" mainstream US media are having a field day with the Venezuelan government's refusal to renew the license of a broadcast network -- RCTV -- whose owner, Marcel Granier, was implicated in the economic sabotage of 2003 as well as the 2003 coup against President Hugo Chavez. When the coup failed due to overwhelming democratic opposition and Chavez was returned to power, Granier's RCTV and the other commercial stations ran old Hollywood movies and cartoons.

RCTV was not "shut down" by Chavez -- the twice-democratically elected and legitimate President of Venezuela. The Venezuelan government refused to renew their license because, well, they simply weren't serving the public interest. If Bob Wright and NBC's parent company, General Electric, conspired to overthrow a US President, would it be wrong to refuse to renew licenses?

So Condoleezza Rice wagged her finger at Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro today over Venezuela's refusal to renew RCTV's license. She told a meeting of the Organization of American States in Panama that

Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience are not a thorn in the side of government. Disagreeing with your government is not unpatriotic and most certainly should not be a crime in any country, especially a democracy.
The irony is delicious. Freedom of speech is GREAT if it is pro-global, unregulated, laissez faire, (so-called) "free-market" capitalist speech. If it is anti-global, unregulated, laissez faire, (so-called) "free-market" capitalist speech, then, well, whatever. Maybe it's okay. Whatever. Maybe it's un-American. I don't know. Whatever. And disagreeing with your government is GREAT if your government is trying to regulate the effects of capitalism within society. If you happen to think that an invasion of a sovereign state who had not threatened you and posed no threat -- immediate or otherwise -- to you, and which invasion was based on lies and probably illegal according to international law is a bad thing, well, whatever. You're probably a communist or something.

So I find it interesting that the "liberal" mainstream US media are not jumping all over the fact that our "ally" in Pakistan, the anti-democratic dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has updated an ordinance that gives him the power to have any building shut down if HE believes an illegal transmission is being aired, and gives him the power to cancel the license of any TV channel he chooses. Oh, and did I mention that the government was already blocking the transmission of the three leading TV stations in Pakistan, because they have been covering the civil unrest surrounding Musharraf's firing of the Chief Justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court?
Why are we supporting this guy? And this is not a Republican/Democrat thing, either. Even the Democrats in the US support Musharraf. No, this is another conflict between global, unregulated, laissez faire, (so-called) "free-market" capitalism, and anything else. It might be directed against Socialism, sure. But it is just as much directed against the kind of capitalism that was practiced in the United States from the time of the New Deal until the trickle-down, supply-side, de-regulated Reagan years.

This is why the late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II called Soviet Communism and unregulated Capitalism morally equivalent evils.

Meanwhile, the man that George W. Bush said was America's most wanted, the man Bush said we'd get "dead or alive" before he flip-flopped and decided he wasn't really very much interested in him, the man who was behind the most brutal attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor, Osama bin Laden, is alive and well and living in Pakistan, according to the Taliban. Under the protection, no doubt, of Pervez Musharraf.

What has happened to this country I love so much? Why are we not clamoring in the streets to
IMPEACH GEORGE W. BUSH???

4 comments:

Ken said...

The black background on this blog makes it completely unreadable.

Julia_1984 said...

And the ignorance of the author of this blog on the current venezuelan situation makes it not only completely unreadable but also as a part of the mass ignorance it tries to criticize. So before joining to the logic of "everyone who attacks Bush is good", think a little, read even more and find out that Chavez it is a dictator and its causing great harm and pain to people like me, who lives in Venezuela. So do not support that crime.
PS: Excuses for my bad english.

Dr. Fallon said...

Sorry Ken.

Julia, tell me what I am writing about that is incorrect, and we can talk. Am I relaying something that is not true? I am not a reporter, and I am not in Venezuela, so I have to rely on what is published. I read news media and blogs from both the left and right, as well as mainstream international news agencies (AP, AFP, Reuters, etc.).

If I have posted something that is not true, please correct me.

Now, if you think this blog is about "everyone who attacks Bush is good," then I have to tell you that you are guilty of the very same ignorance of which you accuse me.

By the way, your English is fine. I usually only insult Americans who can't speak or write English well.

;-)

R. Lopez said...

Hi Dr. Fallon,

Factual error, the coup was on April 2002. And the "economic sabotage" began on December 2002 and ended Feb 2003. A good Venezuelan newspaper that also writes in english is El Universal, as well as the Daily Journal in Caracas.

Never heard back from you about my paper.

Thanks,
R. Lopez