Chavez Shuts Down Free Speech!
- Thread starter Baron Max
- Start date
I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but you need to go back to school and study simple arithmetic, hypewaders. I don't know if read-only didn't catch your goof-up, or just wanted to ignore it to side against the opposition.
To begin, Venezuela does not belong to the US, so the total amount of oil it possesses it really immaterial. It is estimated we receive 15% of our imported oil from Venezuela, no need to replace the total reserves of that country. Second, did you not realize 10,360 million is equal 10,360,000,000, or over 10 billion barrels? If we continued to receive 15% of Venezuela's output until it was totally depleted, that would be about 11.5 billion barrels. Futhermore, it seems Venezuela's estimates may be inflated while ANWR's estimates rely on old surveys that are not complete, underestimating the reserves held there. So, YES, it is possible to replace the oil we get from Venezuela with oil from ANWR if we choose to do so.
You're right, I made a sloppy comparison, 2inquisitive. That crude comparison was hastily extracted with the intention of exploring Sandy's thinking. Sadly the exploration discovered little or no intellectual reserves at Sandy's end. But you are obviously functioning and responding on a much higher level than she, and I thank you for adding to the discussion. It can get tiresome attempting to interact about serious topics with folks unaccustomed to applying simple reason.
I did use somewhat incompatible sources for the comparison, and I sloppily slipped 2 zeros. So it seems that Sandy is proposing to replace a comparitive supply of 100 Dollars available now, with a supply of 28 Cents in several years' time. Even without adjusting for development and inflation, her proposal still would not make good business sense in my estimation.
Stuart Eizenstat put it better than I, when he spoke to the House Committee on International Relations:
"Venezuela does not belong to the US, so the total amount of oil it possesses it really immaterial."
True. But remember the USA is Venezuela's leading customer:
"Futhermore, it seems Venezuela's estimates may be inflated while ANWR's estimates rely on old surveys that are not complete"
Lets see some evidence for that conclusion. A discussion of the oil imports we would have to immediately replace in order to shun Chavez may seem somewhat tangential to the discussion of Chavez' censorship. But just how much repression Americans are being lead to overlook or notice, where, and why is actually extremely relevant to this issue. Arabia is under a far more repressive Sa'ud regime, yet Americans are not being roused into righteous democratic indignance toward that country or its monarchy.
This disparity has much to do with how much oil the Sa'ud mafia controls, and how committed they are to selling that oil to American corporations in the future. Although Chavez regime is far less repressive, pundits and Bush Administration officials are consistently playing up fears of Chavez while generally ignoring routine Saudi repression, including the active suppression of a free press in Arabia.
Obviously the Bush Administration does not trust the Chavez regime, and wants it toppled. There is no easy way for the US to replace Venezuelan imports, and there is no way that ANWR can provide an equivalent supply any time soon, if ever. I've heard no mention from upper neoconservative ranks of shunning Venezuelan oil, and I suspect that it's because we can't- the resultant damage to our economy would be crippling, because there is no ready replacement for Venezuelan imports to the USA.
I did use somewhat incompatible sources for the comparison, and I sloppily slipped 2 zeros. So it seems that Sandy is proposing to replace a comparitive supply of 100 Dollars available now, with a supply of 28 Cents in several years' time. Even without adjusting for development and inflation, her proposal still would not make good business sense in my estimation.
Stuart Eizenstat put it better than I, when he spoke to the House Committee on International Relations:
"Venezuela does not belong to the US, so the total amount of oil it possesses it really immaterial."
True. But remember the USA is Venezuela's leading customer:
Cesar J. Alvarez, Council on Foreign Relations
"Futhermore, it seems Venezuela's estimates may be inflated while ANWR's estimates rely on old surveys that are not complete"
Lets see some evidence for that conclusion. A discussion of the oil imports we would have to immediately replace in order to shun Chavez may seem somewhat tangential to the discussion of Chavez' censorship. But just how much repression Americans are being lead to overlook or notice, where, and why is actually extremely relevant to this issue. Arabia is under a far more repressive Sa'ud regime, yet Americans are not being roused into righteous democratic indignance toward that country or its monarchy.
This disparity has much to do with how much oil the Sa'ud mafia controls, and how committed they are to selling that oil to American corporations in the future. Although Chavez regime is far less repressive, pundits and Bush Administration officials are consistently playing up fears of Chavez while generally ignoring routine Saudi repression, including the active suppression of a free press in Arabia.
Obviously the Bush Administration does not trust the Chavez regime, and wants it toppled. There is no easy way for the US to replace Venezuelan imports, and there is no way that ANWR can provide an equivalent supply any time soon, if ever. I've heard no mention from upper neoconservative ranks of shunning Venezuelan oil, and I suspect that it's because we can't- the resultant damage to our economy would be crippling, because there is no ready replacement for Venezuelan imports to the USA.
Last edited:
Actually, I caught the error in the numbers but let it slide because the general principle he was expressing was still correct. The proven reserves in ANWR would not last long at all when compared to current import rates. In essence, we could not afford to shun Venezuela's contribution to our oil supply without causing severe damage to our economy. True - no one knows for sure what the actual amount of oil is anywhere. But it's not even close to being worth the gamble to try and depend on unproven supplies! That would be pure foolishness personified.
It slipped when some people made completely unfounded statements about oil.
Feel free to bring it back on track.
Baron Max: "Is this thread about free speech under Hugo Chaves' rule .....or what?"
We have been further exploring the geoeconomic relevance of Venezuelan domestic politics. Chavez' censorship is being selectively criticized from the USA, yet an embargo has never been seriously considered in Washington. It was suggested by Sandy and TW Scott that USA could break economic ties with Venezuela by simply replacing Venezuelan oil with future production from ANWR, or, um... Michigan. But Venezuelan and US oilfields are not comparable in economic potential.
False hopes have been raised in this discussion, that domestic American oil can approach the quantity, availability, and value of Venezuelan imports. I hope we'll continue to criticize censorship in Venezuela, but there's little to be gained by pretending Venezuelan oil is irrelevant, or by pretending it can be replaced by domestic US oil. Until energy production moves beyond today's petroleum era, international relations between major oil exporters (like Venezuela) and major oil dependents (like the USA) will be hinging on oil supplies.
Here's a brief review of the overriding economic relationship between Washington and Caracas.
Strong criticism of Chavez' censorship is fitting, as would also be the case if Americans were honest with each other about the antidemocratic nature of the Sa'ud regime in Arabia. But there is a double-standard in play. We shouldn't kid ourselves about the democratic credentials of oil providers, nor should we lapse into denial over the global and temporal status of the dwindling massive, easy-access oil reserves.
We have been further exploring the geoeconomic relevance of Venezuelan domestic politics. Chavez' censorship is being selectively criticized from the USA, yet an embargo has never been seriously considered in Washington. It was suggested by Sandy and TW Scott that USA could break economic ties with Venezuela by simply replacing Venezuelan oil with future production from ANWR, or, um... Michigan. But Venezuelan and US oilfields are not comparable in economic potential.
False hopes have been raised in this discussion, that domestic American oil can approach the quantity, availability, and value of Venezuelan imports. I hope we'll continue to criticize censorship in Venezuela, but there's little to be gained by pretending Venezuelan oil is irrelevant, or by pretending it can be replaced by domestic US oil. Until energy production moves beyond today's petroleum era, international relations between major oil exporters (like Venezuela) and major oil dependents (like the USA) will be hinging on oil supplies.
Here's a brief review of the overriding economic relationship between Washington and Caracas.
Strong criticism of Chavez' censorship is fitting, as would also be the case if Americans were honest with each other about the antidemocratic nature of the Sa'ud regime in Arabia. But there is a double-standard in play. We shouldn't kid ourselves about the democratic credentials of oil providers, nor should we lapse into denial over the global and temporal status of the dwindling massive, easy-access oil reserves.
Last edited:
Sorry hypewaders, my criticism of your arithmetic sounded more severe that I really intended. It is just that I often see a distortion of facts from both sides to support biased viewpoints.
The Sa'ud regime is not so much looked at as a model for the way a country should be run, but more as to the fact that it is a relatively stable regime in a volatile region that does not mass murder its citizens.
It is politics, a difference in political philosophy. As stated earlier, if Venezuelan oil goes elsewhere, it does not reduce the amount of oil in the world market.
hypewaders,
Yes, but the volume of oil the US, or any nation that does not have adequate supplies, needs to import comes from the world market. If Chevez decided to stop selling to the US and sold to Great Britain instead, for example, then Great Britain would not need to import a corresponding amount from other world suppliers. That amount from other suppliers would then be available in the world market for the US to replace the lost imports from Venezuela. But the US would still be dependent on foreign suppliers, thus the need to consider developing our own, internal supply, until we can replace the needed oil with biofuels and other energy sources such as wind, solar and nuclear.
hypewaders,
The evidence that ANWR's estimates are not complete? It was in the link you posted and is well known. It literally takes and act of Congress to conduct oil resource surveys in ANWR. Ecological damage to some extent is a real consequence in ANWR. Politics plays a large role in the debate, for instance, how much ecological damage is acceptable to supply our need for oil? Some say none to the pristine beauty and wildlife in ANWR. Others think the cost in American lives we forfeit in an attempt to stabilize some volatile oil producing countries more than offset the ecological damage.
The Sa'ud regime is not so much looked at as a model for the way a country should be run, but more as to the fact that it is a relatively stable regime in a volatile region that does not mass murder its citizens.
Obviously the Chavez regime does not trust the Bush Administration either.
It is politics, a difference in political philosophy. As stated earlier, if Venezuelan oil goes elsewhere, it does not reduce the amount of oil in the world market. Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
2inquisitive Thanks for your post, It helped me straighten out some thoughts on the ANWAR and the world oil market, I had a problem trying to express it clearly, your post cleared up the vapor lock.
The same way they establish public schools , public forms scholl commitee or council elections where the public decides who gets what job . With the media its simple process , but also you have laws like the right of reply .
No you could not of watched nor read the article so I will give you some reasons :
Recall this was a twice democratically elected President .
Which proves collusion with a illegal coup with the conspirators .
Need I say anything here .
This station has had 5 years to clean up its act , this station is nothing more than subversive to libert .
Lets look at this from America , do you agree with these shutdowns by the US ?
The US goverment claimed these were supporters of violence and terrorism and the spreader of Lies and disinformation . Was the US goverment justified in closing down these sites ? If so then why doesnt a coup conspirator news channel fit the bill ?
Brian Foley: "Lets look at this from America , do you agree with these shutdowns by the US ?"
They weren't comparable shutdowns. The investigated websites were not prevented from resuming, and the violations were over things like copyright infringement and illegal drug paraphenalia sales. Read the articles you linked, and not just the headlines.
"Was the US goverment justified in closing down these sites ? If so then why doesnt a coup conspirator news channel fit the bill ?"
You're raising a pathetic comparison, Brian. A comparable move in the USA would be the politically-motivated permanent shutdown of at least 2 major, TV/Cable networks, in order to similarly take down 30% of the US news market.
"Recall [Chavez] was a twice democratically elected President ."
How does this empower Chavez to suppress critical media? You have a strange notion of democracy, Brian.
"Need I say anything here ."
Yes. That is, if you are a sincere defender of free press. This would then be where you say that either media has editorial freedom or it does not. That is the very simple difference between a free press and government censorship.
I read [your posted articles]. I also watched The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. You've provided absolutely nothing to refute that Chavez' shutdown of RCTV is blatant government censorship.
"No you could not of watched nor read the article so I will give you some reasons :"
Don't be childish. I certainly did read the articles, and I certainly did watch the video. If you want readers to continue to take your posts seriously, then you should give those who take the time to pay attention to you more respect than this.
You are here attempting to defend the overwhelmingly unpopular and nakedly antidemocratic actions of Hugo Chavez on populist and democratic grounds- That's a patently impossible position to take, while maintaining any shred of logic or sincerity. Please drop this ridiculous moralistic defense of the morally indefensible- you'll only embarrass yourself.
They weren't comparable shutdowns. The investigated websites were not prevented from resuming, and the violations were over things like copyright infringement and illegal drug paraphenalia sales. Read the articles you linked, and not just the headlines.
"Was the US goverment justified in closing down these sites ? If so then why doesnt a coup conspirator news channel fit the bill ?"
You're raising a pathetic comparison, Brian. A comparable move in the USA would be the politically-motivated permanent shutdown of at least 2 major, TV/Cable networks, in order to similarly take down 30% of the US news market.
"Recall [Chavez] was a twice democratically elected President ."
How does this empower Chavez to suppress critical media? You have a strange notion of democracy, Brian.
"Need I say anything here ."
Yes. That is, if you are a sincere defender of free press. This would then be where you say that either media has editorial freedom or it does not. That is the very simple difference between a free press and government censorship.
I read [your posted articles]. I also watched The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. You've provided absolutely nothing to refute that Chavez' shutdown of RCTV is blatant government censorship.
"No you could not of watched nor read the article so I will give you some reasons :"
Don't be childish. I certainly did read the articles, and I certainly did watch the video. If you want readers to continue to take your posts seriously, then you should give those who take the time to pay attention to you more respect than this.
You are here attempting to defend the overwhelmingly unpopular and nakedly antidemocratic actions of Hugo Chavez on populist and democratic grounds- That's a patently impossible position to take, while maintaining any shred of logic or sincerity. Please drop this ridiculous moralistic defense of the morally indefensible- you'll only embarrass yourself.
Last edited:
Ok more stronger , Al Jazeera.
Outright threats :
Or simply an outright ban :
And to a outright denial of service in America itself :
It doesnt take much imagination to see what could happen .
Try and understand , or at least see that RCTV is not disappearing its just lost its licence to broadcast on goverment channels .
Mole hills into a mountains , of course the stokers are the anti-Chavez mob .
What you are defending is a corporate media who are ideologically vehemently opposed to Chavez's Socialist reforms to a point where this entity co-conspired in a violent coup to unseat a popularily elected head of state . This corporate entity is intent on destroying by deliberately providing the public with libelous misinformation and an outright political boycott by refusing to give any airtime to his party or those allied to Chavez . That is irresponsible behaviour for any media and it is diametrically opposed to free speech and the free attainment of information .What you are supporting is seditious criminality .
Chavez should have controlled the media the American way, with intimidation through the FCC, you know, subtle.
I was just about to bring this up. If Venezuela had the FCC they would of been taken off the air for the way they covered the coup--they basically were the propaganda for a illegal group trying to seize power. But maybe they would of been shut down earlier, they didn't meet anyone's standards.
So if they were in the US not only would they be off the air they might face criminal charges, or just be named enemy combatants and never seen or heard from again.
Suing CNN? He's an out of control dictator!
I don't think that link helps your case.
Imagine what would happen to TV stations here that did that to Bush...
If it were the US, he would have just bought them out, or revoked their license on a technicality.
[edit] The Venezuelan government decision not to renew a broadcast license for private TV channel Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV)...
oh
[edit] The Venezuelan government decision not to renew a broadcast license for private TV channel Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV)...
oh
Hugo Chavez is probably the greatest leader of our era. He opposes real dictators such as the oppressive government of imperial America. The media who does nothing but lie has spread so much huge amounts of fallacy about Chavez that there is no point in taking any of that crap seriously. If he did indeed close down a radio station, I would like to hear about it from a legitimate source. I see no reason why he should not shut down a good portion of those blatantly corrupt TV and radio stations that do nothing but spread lies about him.