Ableton Forum

robtronik wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:

robtronik wrote:I love Deva's support of Hugo Chavez. LOL at the idea that Venezuala is heading in the right positive direction under his leadership.... I guess you don't care a whit for checks and balances of power, free speech, and I also bet you adore his bedside manner for Castro recently.

Just guessing, if I may.

rob.

He was democratically elected, his people like him. We chose the wrong side in that battle. IMO It's our fault that we have problems with him.

The countries the US deems enemy states or decides to befriend are not chosen because of the adherence to the democratic process, it's all about political maneuvering. This has been, and is being proven over and over again with our alliances to date.

I don't disagree with the manner of his election, of course. I just dislike him in the same way I would dislike a nationalist socialist who would be elected in the same manner.

Its not the process I have a problem with, its his ideology that he wants to pass off as good for the country that I dislike. Its pretty apparent his direction when he freely supports someone like Iran's president and Castro. I mean, come on. LOL.

rob.

whats wrong with castro?i love the fact that he hasnt taken any bullshit from our gov.i hope he is in power for another 10 years.im traveling to cuba in february for a month and the us government can lick my balls if they dont like it.

sigh, and this is why we lose the war on our ideals. It is because people are not educated...

The Cuban government's intolerance of democracy and free expression remained unique in the region. A one-party state, Cuba restricted nearly all avenues of political dissent. Although dissidents occasionally faced criminal prosecution, the government relied more frequently on short-term detentions, house arrest, travel restrictions, threats, surveillance, politically-motivated dismissals from employment, and other forms of harassment.

http://hrw.org/wr2k2/americas5.html

really quite sad that one would hate the government that, over the last 200 years, has done more for human and civil rights than any other country.

rob.

robtronik wrote:
really quite sad that one would hate the government that, over the last 200 years, has done more for human and civil rights than any other country.

Don't talk like Uncle Sam's shit is butter. The U.S. is just as guilty of all kinds of documented terror on other countries for their own interests. With that being said, I agree the U.S. has made remarkable contributions to humanity. The coin has two sides. Right now, in this game, the tarnished side happens to be facing up.

robtronik wrote:sigh, and this is why we lose the war on our ideals. It is because people are not educated...

The Cuban government's intolerance of democracy and free expression remained unique in the region. A one-party state, Cuba restricted nearly all avenues of political dissent. Although dissidents occasionally faced criminal prosecution, the government relied more frequently on short-term detentions, house arrest, travel restrictions, threats, surveillance, politically-motivated dismissals from employment, and other forms of harassment.

http://hrw.org/wr2k2/americas5.html

really quite sad that one would hate the government that, over the last 200 years, has done more for human and civil rights than any other country.

rob.

We created that situation, period.

The CIA made no less than 6 attempts to assassinate Castro when he gained power. The first attempt was made when Castro, not knowing that the USA would not tolerate any form of socialism in Cuba in the least, was trying to decide whether or not to ally his party with the US or the USSR.
Thing is, we had backed the dictator that was in power before him, US gambling casinos with known connections to the mob were pretty much in charge of local politics, and keeping the government in power. He was still thinking about siding with us though, being that he didn't like the legacy of Stalin.... go figure?

We screwed that one up royally. He ended up paranoid, and rightly so, his whole stated reason for fighting was to rid Cuba of a dictator, and his fear that something worse than his government would be instated is the very reason for his stranglehold on Cuba.
He really isn't the monster we make him out to be, and it's pretty funny that most people who think that he is, know very little about the situation.
BTW The USA backed an attempt to assassinate Chavez too...and you wonder why they would be in communication? Old lessons never learned...

The coin has two sides.

yes, in fact.. castro has his demons to contend with, as well.. he's not a saint, but you're correct in your assessment.. chaves is not a saint either, but even the guiltiest of man are philanthropic.

deva wrote:

rtopia wrote:

deva wrote: yes, Israel as it is should end...
I think the current US government should end.
Many people do.

I commend you on your intellectual honesty and copping to your real agenda.

(that wasn't sarcasm)
(deva's quote edited to emphasize the points of the actual statement)

- r

I'll just add for clarity that I have no ill will towards the people of Israel or the U.S. and in fact I believe the citizens of both countries would be better off and indeed it is because of that belief that I feel that way.

We need a new vision and as I said above I believe that Venezuela is engaged in a very positive experiment that we can learn from.

you're intentions may be good however...

...there's nothing new about the "experiment" Venezuela is engaged in.

There have been plenty of Communist/Socialist governments in the world already.
I'm old enough to have seen this script play itself out.

If you got any other new visions I encourage you to "go for it" as long as me and everyone else with a job isn't forced to pay for it.

People like me seem to be the first ones targeted for confiscation when guys like Chavez come into power.

robtronik wrote:I love Deva's support of Hugo Chavez. LOL at the idea that Venezuala is heading in the right positive direction under his leadership.... I guess you don't care a whit for checks and balances of power, free speech, and I also bet you adore his bedside manner for Castro recently.

Just guessing, if I may.

rob.

Really, from what do you even come to these conclusions? Do you just listen to corporate media propaganda? Seriously, you are just regurgitating U.S. propaganda that flies in the face of the truth.

The great majority of commercial media in Venezuela is owned by a handful of big corporations. Big business does not like what Chavez is doing. Chavez is routinely criticized and condemned in the media in Venezuela. He has done nothing to stop it, though he has the power to do so. I doubt you can find a more vibrant and authentic free speech anywhere.

I'm sorry, but the fact that you pick this point, tells me very clearly that you are only passing on something you have read in the U.S. media.

I work with some Venezuelans and know people who have visited there recently. The video group I work with has exchanged videos with a Venezuelan TV station as part of an effort at cross cultural pollination.

There are over 400 new independent radio stations. They are not government owned or sponsored. They are free to criticize Chavez, and they do because the people are not afraid of government repercussion.

Venezuela now has a Constitution that is as forward thinking as any in the world. Certainly more so than the U.S. one.

Unlike the U.S. representative model, which is obviously broken as our leaders almost never actually carry out the will of the people, Venezuela is developing a participatory model where citizens are involved in decision making that we have no say in. There is no better check and balance that an engaged citizenry who are actively deciding the course of the country.

from wikipedia to start you off. Just be aware of some of the things he's pushing for and ask yourself if Chavez is the model for democratic process....despite your pushing for him to be a model citizen of his country (IOW, I don't see Bush making these kinds of statements, chuckle).

Authoritarian rule and power consolidation
In spite of a presidential term limit of 12 years, Chávez often suggests that he will remain in power for 25 years,[27] a claim he denies as a misinterpretation of his intent.[28] However he recently proposed a constitutionally binding referendum to allow for a third term.[29] Chávez has said that if the opposition boycotts the 2006 Venezuelan presidential election, he might hold a referendum to abolish the presidential term limit of 12 years and allow him to run for re-election "indefinitely".[30] According to an article in The Washington Post a program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections.[31]
According to the US State Department, Chávez has abandoned democratic traditions, and placed democracy in peril with unchecked concentration of power, political persecution, and intimidation.[4] Foreign Affairs Magazine says that, to his critics, Chávez is a power-hungry dictator whose authoritarian vision and policies are a formidable menace to his people, with autocratic and megalomaniacal tendencies.[3] The Center for Security Policy calls Chávez a "self-absorbed, unstable strongman" who has found "common cause with terrorists and the regimes that support them."[11]
Foreign Policy Magazine says that Chávez has "updated tyranny for today" and "is practicing a new style of authoritarianism".[18] The article adds that Chávez has achieved absolute control of all state institutions that might check his power, and unrivaled political control. They also note that, more importantly, "Chávez commands the institute that supervises elections, the National Electoral Council" and say, "If democracy requires checks on the power of incumbents, Venezuela doesn't come close."
In testimony before the U.S. Senate, the South American Project Director for the Center for Strategic International Studies characterized Venezuela's democracy as "now in intensive care", saying that Chávez's government has weakened the foundations of Venezuela's democracy by systematically hacking away at the institutional checks on Chávez's authority". The testimony also included statements that the Chávez government had crossed the line by "selectively arresting opposition leaders, torturing some mebers of the opposition (according to human rights organizations) and encouraging, if not directing, its squads of Bolivarian Circles to beat up members of Congress and intimidate voters — all with impunity".[32] Amnesty International reports that Venezuela lacks an independent and impartial judiciary.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Chavez

there's more of course. Up to you to see if he's just a shining example of how to run a democracy, of course. Keep in mind he likes to hang with Castro and Ahmenijiad (chuckle) and then ask yourself, who would he like to be?

rob.

p.s. I'm not a victim of U.S. media propaganda, I don't watch T.V. and oh, I read the blogs, websites, and tons of media online that gives a ton of perspectives. I'd say that Hugo is definitely not the knight in shining armor you want him to be.

rtopia wrote:
you're intentions may be good however...

...there's nothing new about the "experiment" Venezuela is engaged in.

There have been plenty of Communist/Socialist governments in the world already.
I'm old enough to have seen this script play itself out.

If you got any other new visions I encourage you to "go for it" as long as me and everyone else with a job isn't forced to pay for it.

People like me seem to be the first ones targeted for confiscation when guys like Chavez come into power.

Yes, there is something new. I understand why you might think not, since communist/socialist governments of the 20th century were an obvious failure.

The reason they were a failure, is because they were socialism from the top down. Big brother government deciding everything. This is disasterous. I would absolutely oppose this myself. Of course the capitalist model is showing itself a failure as well, but it will be another decade or two before we all realize it. That is why it is imperative we come up with new alternatives.

What is different in Venezuela, what is now being labeled socialism, is socialism from the bottom up, or as one writer put it, libertarian socialism.

"The conception which challenges the logic of capital is one which explicitly recognises the centrality of self-management in the workplace and self-government in the community as the means of unleashing human potential"

"We can see this perspective embodied in the Bolivarian Constitution of Venezuela--- in Article 299's emphasis upon 'ensuring overall human development', in the declaration of Article 20 that 'everyone has the right to the free development of his or her own personality' and in the focus of Article 102 upon 'developing the creative potential of every human being and the full exercise of his or her personality in a democratic society.'"

"The Bolivarian Constitution does not only stress the goal of human development. It also is unequivocal in indicating that human beings develop their capacity only through their own activity."

"[the] constitution also guarantees the right of property (Article 115), identifies a role for private initiative in generating growth and employment (299) and calls upon the State to promote private initiative (112)."

As you can see from the language, this is very different from the old state driven socialist/communist model which tended to subsume the interests and character of the individual for some homogenous collective whole.

And you would not have to worry about your house being confiscated. The sanctity of your home and ownership of it are guaranteed by the constitution. However, if you own a factory that is sitting idle it may be expropriated and put to use. There is wealth and land redistribution happening. The redistribution is being put into the hands of communities and not government ownership.

I will add that the literacy rate is almost 0 now, every person has healthcare, the economy is booming. Streets and cafes are full with people vibrantly arguing and discussing the merits of different policies and what course the country should take. People living in the barrios are feeling empowered, and rather than just seeking to get out, are working together to improve them. This is not happening because the government dictates it, but because the people are willing it.

robtronik wrote:there's more of course. Up to you to see if he's just a shining example of how to run a democracy, of course. Keep in mind he likes to hang with Castro and Ahmenijiad (chuckle) and then ask yourself, who would he like to be?

Not sure I get that sentence?

Wiki is good for a totally opinion based assessment, but it's all user submitted, and that article was flagged as biased.
From biased Democracy Now, an interview with him, they didn't ask him enough hard questions, but worth the read.

http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/19/1336214

Yeah, I don't think posting a Wiki reference is the proper support you are looking for Rob...especially with a title like:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[u]Critici ... ugo_Chavez [/u]

Totally Biased, Mr. Educated. J/k sorry couldn't resist.....

robtronik wrote:from wikipedia to start you off. Just be aware of some of the things he's pushing for and ask yourself if Chavez is the model for democratic process....despite your pushing for him to be a model citizen of his country (IOW, I don't see Bush making these kinds of statements, chuckle).

Authoritarian rule and power consolidation
In spite of a presidential term limit of 12 years, Chávez often suggests that he will remain in power for 25 years,[27] a claim he denies as a misinterpretation of his intent.[28] However he recently proposed a constitutionally binding referendum to allow for a third term.[29] Chávez has said that if the opposition boycotts the 2006 Venezuelan presidential election, he might hold a referendum to abolish the presidential term limit of 12 years and allow him to run for re-election "indefinitely".[30] According to an article in The Washington Post a program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections.[31]
According to the US State Department, Chávez has abandoned democratic traditions, and placed democracy in peril with unchecked concentration of power, political persecution, and intimidation.[4] Foreign Affairs Magazine says that, to his critics, Chávez is a power-hungry dictator whose authoritarian vision and policies are a formidable menace to his people, with autocratic and megalomaniacal tendencies.[3] The Center for Security Policy calls Chávez a "self-absorbed, unstable strongman" who has found "common cause with terrorists and the regimes that support them."[11]
Foreign Policy Magazine says that Chávez has "updated tyranny for today" and "is practicing a new style of authoritarianism".[18] The article adds that Chávez has achieved absolute control of all state institutions that might check his power, and unrivaled political control. They also note that, more importantly, "Chávez commands the institute that supervises elections, the National Electoral Council" and say, "If democracy requires checks on the power of incumbents, Venezuela doesn't come close."
In testimony before the U.S. Senate, the South American Project Director for the Center for Strategic International Studies characterized Venezuela's democracy as "now in intensive care", saying that Chávez's government has weakened the foundations of Venezuela's democracy by systematically hacking away at the institutional checks on Chávez's authority". The testimony also included statements that the Chávez government had crossed the line by "selectively arresting opposition leaders, torturing some mebers of the opposition (according to human rights organizations) and encouraging, if not directing, its squads of Bolivarian Circles to beat up members of Congress and intimidate voters — all with impunity".[32] Amnesty International reports that Venezuela lacks an independent and impartial judiciary.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Chavez

there's more of course. Up to you to see if he's just a shining example of how to run a democracy, of course. Keep in mind he likes to hang with Castro and Ahmenijiad (chuckle) and then ask yourself, who would he like to be?

rob.

p.s. I'm not a victim of U.S. media propaganda, I don't watch T.V. and oh, I read the blogs, websites, and tons of media online that gives a ton of perspectives. I'd say that Hugo is definitely not the knight in shining armor you want him to be.

Of course you can find all sorts of pundits who will offer all kinds of criticism of Chavez, some of it even valid. However all that crap you are citing is straight U.S. government propaganda designed to undermine Venezuelan autonomy.

Legitimate critics do raise the question of the danger of Chavez the personality and that is a legitimate concern, but none of them will say anything other than Venezuela is far better off today than it was 10 years ago, by any measure, because that is just an undeniable truth.

Now go talk to the people of Venezuela and learn the truth from their own mouths. The great majority of them support Chavez because he is doing good things for the country. Even people who do not like his radical language. If they do not want him to have a 3rd term, they will vote against any referendum. He is free to propose and the people are free to oppose. That is how democracy works! They elected him based on his campaign promises and he is fulfilling them. Illiteracy is almost 0, everyone has healthcare, the economy is booming, nobody is put in jail for political beliefs. The military is no longer universally feared. The barrios are being renewed. The rights of individuals are much greater under the new Constitution, especially women and indigenous peoples. A real participatory democracy is beginning to flourish.

Imagine if we actually had a politician in office who lived up to his campaign speeches and did good things for the people of the United States. The thought is almost impossible to imagine at this point. Because we have nothing like it here, it is so easy for people to be cynical and not believe it can happen anywhere. Which says something sad about the U.S.

while you throw around the word propaganda...

"libertarian socialism" sounds like propaganda to me

(that's probably because I really AM a libertarian)

deva wrote: And you would not have to worry about your house being confiscated. The sanctity of your home and ownership of it are guaranteed by the constitution. However, if you own a factory that is sitting idle it may be expropriated and put to use. There is wealth and land redistribution happening. The redistribution is being put into the hands of communities and not government ownership.

Confiscation is confiscation regardless of who the recipient is, what it's for and what other cute name collectivists like you dream up to make it sound nice.

using your example:

If it's my factory and I decided that I needed to slow down production to keep my profit margin vs. operating costs in line....

...and the government decides that my "slow down" is really their definition of "idle"...

...and I tell them "fuck you - it's my factory - you're not getting it"...

...and then I take my advertising budget and go on a FUCK YOU CHAVEZ campaign while funding his opponent in the next election (because I'm tired of all this socialism crap and I'm now the George Soros of Venezuela)...

...exactly how do you think this "new experiment in government" is going to "convince me to change my mind"?

"peaceful negotiation"?
"gentle persuasion"?

You tell me - because I can't get past the idea of soldiers, tanks, "expropriated" assets and jail.

Especially in THAT part of the world.

But then again - If I were Venezuelan on the losing end of what you call "wealth redistribution" - I'd be trying to move to Boise right now.

It's real easy to be "pro socialist" when you're an underachiever with nothing to be confiscated.

- r

I used wikipedia because it was an expedient way to get the point across w/o giving you a ton of links to follow. All the references are linkable btw, so again, you can check it out on your own time.

And LOL at Libertarian Socialism. Might as well call it the salt/pepper movement too since they are so reconcilable.

rob.

deva wrote:...I doubt you can find a more vibrant and authentic free speech anywhere.

dude - I see "FUCK BUSH" bumper stickers 100x a day, watched two hours of 9/11 conspiracy videos yesterday, watched two hippies screaming at each other at my coffee shop about some NSA thing and if I wanted to I could turn on my televsion and see a whole lot of pundits criticizing this president to the point of impeachment.

we don't have "find it" - it's in our face

Where is all this US government repression I keep hearing about?

deva wrote: I'm sorry, but the fact that you pick this point, tells me very clearly that you are only passing on something you have read in the U.S. media.

and a jab like this makes you an obvious cliche

Is it really that hard to accept that you just have a different worldview and that the people who disagree are just as passionate and informed as you are?

or is everyone who disagrees with you a robotic propaganda tool of the state?

deva wrote: Venezuela now has a Constitution that is as forward thinking as any in the world. Certainly more so than the U.S. one.

that's gonna take at least 200 years to prove

deva wrote: Unlike the U.S. representative model, which is obviously broken as our leaders almost never actually carry out the will of the people, Venezuela is developing a participatory model where citizens are involved in decision making that we have no say in. There is no better check and balance that an engaged citizenry who are actively deciding the course of the country.

Our representative model isn't broken because of the way it was designed.
Our representative model is currently "dysfunctional" because of decisions made by the "citizens" who actually choose to participate in it.

We have the checks and balances - apparently a majority of Americans are content with the way their representatives lie to them (or they just forget come election time).

..otherwise they would vote the other way.

(this coming from someone who's candidates never win)

- r