Is this actually a serious post?
Where to begin...
With factual accuracy. Doesn't seem to be much of that in your post.
The "judicial state of emergency" was prompted by notorious and far-reaching corruption in the court system. For instance, the Supreme Court did absolutely nothing to the similarly corrupt Jaime Lusinchi. Even during the proceedings, judges continued indulging their own corruption, as was the case when two judges threw out charges against bankers implicated in the well-remember financial scandal that had occurred several years prior. Oh, and incidentally, the Supreme Court themselves ruled that the constitutional assembly (which was constructing one of the most progressive constitutions of any state, hardly an indication of "dictatorship"), had the right to the judicial authority that they claimed.
You'll need to specify what you're referring to.
You're actually calling this "dictatorial"? So, if I understand this correctly...an instrument that prohibits the citizenry for electing their preferred candidate as they wish is somehow more democratic than a
national referendum that enabled the citizenry to vote for whomever they chose as many times as they chose? Who else is with you there in Bizarro World?
Again, you'll need to specify what you're referring to.
If you're referring to the coup violence, that is not an accurate statement. Much of the footage of the military or Chavistas allegedly shooting and killing opposition supporters was doctored. For instance, the shootings of civilian protesters on Avenida Baralt was apparently conducted by anti-government snipers, inasmuch as there was a time lapse of almost forty-five minutes between the time that they were killed and the time that the Chavistas began shooting (in self-defense). The Chavistas were returning fire against the Metropolitan Police, not shooting civilians themselves. Since propaganda using video footage of the shootings served to build support for the coup, it's dubious as to how Chavez could have possibly profited from ordering civilians killed. Incidentally,
nineteen people were killed during the violence, many of them Chavistas. What does your number of "100" refer to?
I found this one especially amusing, considering that the build-up to the 2002 oil strike was characterized by "[m]ilitary rebels who overthrew a democratically elected president...out on the streets free, wearing their uniforms and openly calling for rebellion against him,"[/i] as put by Bart Jones. It was PDVSA who crippled the oil industry, with the most poignant symbol of this being the anchoring of the
Pilin Leon and the similar actions of the rest of the fleet.
This comment grows even more amusing when we consider the fact that oil nationalization has promoted successful increases in economic growth, and viable socialist economic policies have also promoted social benefits in addition to this growth. As noted in
The Chávez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators:
Tell me, are you an opponent of economic growth?
I'm not familiar with any such referendum, but considering that it was his Constitution that granted citizens the right to recall a president (an electoral instrument that notably does not exist in the U.S., despite the fact that it was dubious that George Bush would have survived such a recall late in his term), you don't have much basis for claiming that his actions in this regard are "dictatorial."
I'm not personally in favor of the "Law of Social Responsibility for Television and Radio," but it is worth noting that it differs little from FCC regulations in several regards, such as its prohibition of broadcasting "vulgarity," sexual indecency, and forms of excessive violence during certain hours. I'm not familiar with any clause that decrees a maximum of 3 1/2 years for reporters that are "disrespectful." There was an increase in the penalty for slanderous and similarly defamatory statements, but no unique penalty was introduced by Chavez, nor did he seek to silence mere "criticism." Indeed, the Venezuelan media (owned by the financial class, and hated by the majority poor), is openly hostile towards the Chavez government, effectively endorsing the 2002 coup against him, and refusing to broadcast his cadenas that were intended to restore order.
Really? Do you have any accurate claims to share with us?
