A new war is coming and its coming soon. The question is where. The answer is easy enough: Gaza. The aggressor: Israel. It will happen within a months time. The justifications will be to prevent the rise of "Hamastan" on Israel's southern border; a belligerent state committed to the destruction of Israel. Of course in reality it will be the other way around, a Jewish state committed to the destruction of a Palestinian prison territory. Not even a state. More lie a cage that people are kept locked in without any chance to for employment, peace, or safety. Israel will strike hard after their defeat last summer to Hezbollah in Lebanon. They want to reestablish the perception of Israeli military dominance in the region and what better place to do it than in Gaza. It should be like shooting fish in a barrel. There is an X-factor in all this, when people have nothing to lose (and those in Gaza literally have nothing) what is to stop them from fighting to the last even if their families and homes are destroyed all around them. Hell, they are use to it by now, bomb the shit out of Gaza and it probably won't look that much different than it does today.
The new defense minister for Israel, Ehud Barak, will be the one to demand it politically and he will not be disappointed. The US will back the war and the US media will give little to no coverage, certainly less than the Lebanon war last summer. Why? Because its against the Palestinian people and the democratically elected Hamas, because the Palestinians have been confined in the Occupied territories for over 40 years now, by far the longest running military occupation in the world, because these people are somehow considered not to be worthy of the standards given to Israelis and US citizens in their countries. Mark my words this war is coming. And when you wage a war with a completely modernized army against a lightly armed impoverished people, people who are forced to live in continual poverty, people who have no place to escape to because they are fenced in, you aren't just waging an aggressive war, you are waging a genocide.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Venezuela and RCTV
So what is happening in Venezuela? A private TV station did not have their broadcasting license renewed by the Chavez government and all of a sudden democracy, freedom of speech and press are all under assault. We have heard this story before about Chavez, but this case needs to be given a closer examination before we pass judgment on it. The major media outlets in the U.S. and Europe have been doing a pitiful job in covering this event. Any semblance of objectivism was long ago disregarded as ‘irrelevant’ when it comes to discussing Chavez. Nevertheless the facts are there for all to see, it simply takes a small amount of effort to uncover them.
Lets begin with a brief overview. RCTV (Radio Caracas TV) did not have their broadcasting license renewed on the 27th of May by the government. This was not an unexpected or rash act; Chavez had made it perfectly clear he did not intend to renew the license for many months. It its place a public TV station Tvez would be set up allowing literally thousands of independent producers access and a platform in which to broadcast to the country. RCTV would not lose its cable or satellite licenses, nor would it be subject to any penalties or criminal charges.
Chavez decided to shut the station down because of its role in the 2002 coup the temporarily ousted him from power. Indeed RCTV is an opposition-aligned company but there is a difference between supporting the opposition in a democratic country and supporting a military coup to overthrow a democracy. RCTV, along with the other privately owned media companies, launched a propaganda effort backing the coup and timed to coincide with it. RCTV failed to report on the mass popular demonstrations that brought Chavez back to his elected office, failed to report that Chavez was back in power after the coup failed, and later portrayed Chavez supporters as killing peaceful anti-chavistas, which was in fact later disproved. RCTV actually went as far as supporting the military coup before it became apparent that the people of Venezuela would not stand for it.
Chavez has sited all this as the reason for not renewing the license. It is worth noting that Chavez has waited 5 years until the current license expired before acting, in complete accordance with Venezuelan law. He refrained from punishing not only RCTV but also other supporters and even members of the military that were complicit in the coup once he was swept back into power.
Can we imagine this happening in the U.S.? If a leading general overthrew the president for a few days and NBC was completely backing the military in this, could we expect that the president would just let NBC be after he regained power? The answer is no. I would expect some sort of treason trials to be initiated or perhaps something to a lesser degree. In Venezuela this did not happen although Chavez clearly had the power and mandate to do such a thing.
So where does that leave us. The Chavez government has acted accordingly in regards to Venezuelan law by removing a private company from public broadcasting frequency for actively supporting an attempt to overthrow the democratic government and establish a military dictatorship. It has left the company free to have its programming on cable and satellite channels.
There has been a lot of coverage of the protests in Caracas against the move by Chavez, but what often is not mentioned is that the pro Chavez rallies taking place at the same time are many times the size of those protesting against. Once again popular support is on the side of the government. Perhaps that is what is the most threatening to the U.S. and Europe is that there is an elected leader actually doing the bidding of the vast majority of the population in his country and not the other way around. In this context in is not surprising to see these countries denounce the move as an attack on democracy and freedom. For example lets look at Condoleezza Rice’s recent statements.
"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."
She also described the move as “undemocratic.” Never mind the fact that Venezuela has NOT charged RCTV with any crimes, and that RCTV supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government. Rice seems like she is a character straight out of 1984, Newspeak and Doublethink come out of her a bit to easily for comfort.
We only have to think of one simple example to see how hypocritical this all this, although we have many to choose from. Just imagine if tonight on the news NBC or CBS or ABC (take your pick) said we all should support Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace and help him overthrown the government. That’s it, nothing more need to be said, that station would be finished instantly. It’s as simple as that people.
Lets begin with a brief overview. RCTV (Radio Caracas TV) did not have their broadcasting license renewed on the 27th of May by the government. This was not an unexpected or rash act; Chavez had made it perfectly clear he did not intend to renew the license for many months. It its place a public TV station Tvez would be set up allowing literally thousands of independent producers access and a platform in which to broadcast to the country. RCTV would not lose its cable or satellite licenses, nor would it be subject to any penalties or criminal charges.
Chavez decided to shut the station down because of its role in the 2002 coup the temporarily ousted him from power. Indeed RCTV is an opposition-aligned company but there is a difference between supporting the opposition in a democratic country and supporting a military coup to overthrow a democracy. RCTV, along with the other privately owned media companies, launched a propaganda effort backing the coup and timed to coincide with it. RCTV failed to report on the mass popular demonstrations that brought Chavez back to his elected office, failed to report that Chavez was back in power after the coup failed, and later portrayed Chavez supporters as killing peaceful anti-chavistas, which was in fact later disproved. RCTV actually went as far as supporting the military coup before it became apparent that the people of Venezuela would not stand for it.
Chavez has sited all this as the reason for not renewing the license. It is worth noting that Chavez has waited 5 years until the current license expired before acting, in complete accordance with Venezuelan law. He refrained from punishing not only RCTV but also other supporters and even members of the military that were complicit in the coup once he was swept back into power.
Can we imagine this happening in the U.S.? If a leading general overthrew the president for a few days and NBC was completely backing the military in this, could we expect that the president would just let NBC be after he regained power? The answer is no. I would expect some sort of treason trials to be initiated or perhaps something to a lesser degree. In Venezuela this did not happen although Chavez clearly had the power and mandate to do such a thing.
So where does that leave us. The Chavez government has acted accordingly in regards to Venezuelan law by removing a private company from public broadcasting frequency for actively supporting an attempt to overthrow the democratic government and establish a military dictatorship. It has left the company free to have its programming on cable and satellite channels.
There has been a lot of coverage of the protests in Caracas against the move by Chavez, but what often is not mentioned is that the pro Chavez rallies taking place at the same time are many times the size of those protesting against. Once again popular support is on the side of the government. Perhaps that is what is the most threatening to the U.S. and Europe is that there is an elected leader actually doing the bidding of the vast majority of the population in his country and not the other way around. In this context in is not surprising to see these countries denounce the move as an attack on democracy and freedom. For example lets look at Condoleezza Rice’s recent statements.
"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."
She also described the move as “undemocratic.” Never mind the fact that Venezuela has NOT charged RCTV with any crimes, and that RCTV supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government. Rice seems like she is a character straight out of 1984, Newspeak and Doublethink come out of her a bit to easily for comfort.
We only have to think of one simple example to see how hypocritical this all this, although we have many to choose from. Just imagine if tonight on the news NBC or CBS or ABC (take your pick) said we all should support Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace and help him overthrown the government. That’s it, nothing more need to be said, that station would be finished instantly. It’s as simple as that people.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Why the Democrats will continue supporting the War
It has become very apparent in the last month or two that the Democrats who took control of Congress in the last election cycle have no intention of putting a stop to one of the wars the U.S. is currently fighting. I am referring of course to Iraq, but let us not forget there are still troops and combat operations going on in Afghanistan and even less mentioned is the situation in Somalia, a country that has been attacked by the U.S. on at least three occasions in 2007.
But I digress; the focus of this article is the situation in Iraq. It was widely recognized that the elections of the Democrats was a in its essence a demand of the people to put an end to the war. Political analysts and people on both sides of the political spectrum acknowledged this. The voters were not asking for a Democrat version of the war, rather they were saying we want to stop this and bring the troops home as soon as possible.
I remember the feeling excitement and the expectation for change that many felt on that night in November when the Dems won control of both Houses. I remained very skeptical about the situation and I feel, unfortunately, that I have been proven right. The Democrats are not taking any steps to end the war. They are funding it without restrictions. This is nothing more than a week capitulation to Bush and the Republicans and a complete disregard for the will of the people. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me, business as usual one might say, but it seems to many others that it has come as a shock. I continually read about the failing of the Dems of the dashed hopes that people had. All I can say is “Wake up people”. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people are dying, not to mention thousands of Americans (whose lives seem to be worth the equivalent of a hundred lives of people of color) doesn’t come into consideration in the minds of politicians.
How can I say such a thing? Simple, look at the situation and draw the only reasonable conclusion you can from it. Political consideration and comfort are the most important thing most of these elected leaders. This war could be stopped right now if the Dems hadn’t provided the funding. So why did they? Here is my answer. They don’t really want to end this war just yet; they need to get closer to Election Day in 2008 so they can use it as an issue against the Republicans. Is this a cynical view of things? Of course it is, but I don’t see how one can’t be cynical these dark days we are living in.
The Dems say, “we want to stop this war and bring the troops home”, and yet they do otherwise with their actions. Let us not forget this when it comes time to vote in 2008 and they position themselves as antiwar and say they will put a stop to it if elected to the presidency. This war will certainly still be ranging on at that point and the reason why is because the Dems will have allowed it to. They do not deserve our support anymore than the Republicans do. In the politics of war it’s not the people suffering and dying that come first in the considerations of the politicians, nor is it the supposed safety or protection of the American people. Rather it is their own political survival that holds the supreme place in their thoughts and considerations.
But I digress; the focus of this article is the situation in Iraq. It was widely recognized that the elections of the Democrats was a in its essence a demand of the people to put an end to the war. Political analysts and people on both sides of the political spectrum acknowledged this. The voters were not asking for a Democrat version of the war, rather they were saying we want to stop this and bring the troops home as soon as possible.
I remember the feeling excitement and the expectation for change that many felt on that night in November when the Dems won control of both Houses. I remained very skeptical about the situation and I feel, unfortunately, that I have been proven right. The Democrats are not taking any steps to end the war. They are funding it without restrictions. This is nothing more than a week capitulation to Bush and the Republicans and a complete disregard for the will of the people. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me, business as usual one might say, but it seems to many others that it has come as a shock. I continually read about the failing of the Dems of the dashed hopes that people had. All I can say is “Wake up people”. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people are dying, not to mention thousands of Americans (whose lives seem to be worth the equivalent of a hundred lives of people of color) doesn’t come into consideration in the minds of politicians.
How can I say such a thing? Simple, look at the situation and draw the only reasonable conclusion you can from it. Political consideration and comfort are the most important thing most of these elected leaders. This war could be stopped right now if the Dems hadn’t provided the funding. So why did they? Here is my answer. They don’t really want to end this war just yet; they need to get closer to Election Day in 2008 so they can use it as an issue against the Republicans. Is this a cynical view of things? Of course it is, but I don’t see how one can’t be cynical these dark days we are living in.
The Dems say, “we want to stop this war and bring the troops home”, and yet they do otherwise with their actions. Let us not forget this when it comes time to vote in 2008 and they position themselves as antiwar and say they will put a stop to it if elected to the presidency. This war will certainly still be ranging on at that point and the reason why is because the Dems will have allowed it to. They do not deserve our support anymore than the Republicans do. In the politics of war it’s not the people suffering and dying that come first in the considerations of the politicians, nor is it the supposed safety or protection of the American people. Rather it is their own political survival that holds the supreme place in their thoughts and considerations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
