AP Reporter: Chávez Power Grab Is 'One of the Boldest Moves of His Presidency'
A Christmas Eve report from Ian James at the Associated Press on developments in Venezuela caused me to go to the dictionary to make sure my understanding of the word "bold" is correct.
In context, here are the two most relevant definitions of the word found at dictionary.com:
- (first listing) "not hesitating or fearful in the face of actual or possible danger or rebuff; courageous and daring: a bold hero."
- (third listing) "necessitating courage and daring; challenging: a bold adventure."
One thus has to take the following sentence, the first in James's report, as a virtually explicit expression of admiration for the latest authoritarian moves by the country's "El Presidente," Hugo Chávez:
Flurry of laws boost Chavez's power in Venezuela
President Hugo Chavez has given himself the equivalent of a big Christmas present in congress: a package of laws that dramatically expand his powers and allow him to undermine opponents in one of the boldest moves of his presidency.
Someone should ask Ian James and his editors how they can believe that an authoritarian "president" who has created his own street army and who then "persuades" a bunch of lame duck legislating Chavistas to give him more power is demonstrating "courage" and "daring." The better explanation of Chávez's moves is that they represent the actions of a coward who is so afraid of his opponents that he isn't willing to face a new legislature where the opposition will only comprise 40% of its membership. A journalist attempting to be objective would have at least settled for "aggressive" -- or, even better, "controversial," a word the establishment press routinely applies to mainstream sensible conservative ideas -- instead of the clearly complimentary "bold."
Here are a few more paragraphs from Mr. James:
In a single week, he has used an outgoing National Assembly packed with loyalists to gain new abilities to crack down on critics - over the air, on the Internet, in universities and from independent organizations that get foreign funding. He also has obtained broad powers to bypass Venezuela's legislature and enact laws by decree for the next year and a half.
Chavez is likely to use the new powers to try to strengthen his political footing as he prepares for the next presidential election in less than two years.
Opponents are denouncing the maneuvers as a virtual "coup d'etat" before a new legislature takes office Jan. 5 with enough opposition lawmakers to prevent passage of some types of major laws.
"What the outgoing National Assembly is doing is taking advantage of Christmas to legislate behind the country's back," said Julio Borges, an opposition congressman-elect. "They're approving a bunch of laws that are aimed solely at concentrating power."
"We are advancing toward a dictatorship," Roman Catholic Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino told Globovision television on Friday. He said officials should consider "the very great responsibility they will have before history and before God if they try to impose a totalitarian dictatorship."
Sadly, James's "bold" report is yet another in a very long list of examples of the establishment press's fascination and nearly explicit support for Latin American dictators and thugs. Current or previous examples include Cuba's Fidel Castro, Chile's Salvador Allende in the 1970s, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Recently Manuel Zelaya, who "was (justifiably) removed from the Honduran presidency by that country's Supreme Court and Congress on June 28 for violations of the constitution," was supported by Hillary Clinton's State Department and the Obama administration and treated with general sympathy in the U.S. establishment press.
It is reasonable to ask how we can trust the AP or others in the establishment press to perform their alleged watchdog function in the U.S. in the face of authoritarian moves by the Obama administration when their sympathies with Latin American and other thugs are so consistent and obvious. The answer, of course, is that we can't.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Maybe he should have said
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 1:43pm.
Maybe he should have said 'brazen'............but these MSM guys - you know - they LOVE these dictators, so they always like to make things sound dramatic.............
No more biased than calling
Submitted by blablablather on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 1:42pm.
No more biased than calling him authoritarian, no?
Uh, no
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 2:23pm.
Anyone who has appropriated "rule by decree" powers for 18 months fits the dictionary definitions of "authoritarian," specifically:
(as a noun) "a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles."
(as an adjective) "favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom"
"Bias" has nothing to do with it. In light of the facts, it's biased NOT to call him an authoritarian, or at a bare minimum to call the actions themselves authoritarian.
Words are a funny thing.
Submitted by blablablather on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 4:12pm.
Words are a funny thing. "Appropriated" for example. Is that the equivalent to a vote by the National Assembly?
Nice non-answer
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 5:27pm.
Care to respond substantively?
If a legislative body (which
Submitted by blablablather on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 5:52pm.
If a legislative body (which is voted into power) votes to give a leader greater power (taking from the legislative bodies power), can that be considered "appropriating" power by the leader?
Not if
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 6:18pm.
A. The legislature is already packed with lame-duck Chavista partisans.
B. The next legislature can't undo what the previous legislature has done, or is prevented from doing so by artificial super-majority rules.
A is definitely true. I'll betcha B is true, and I would challenge you to prove otherwise before quibbling.
As to the word "appropriate" as a verb, there are two relevant meanings:
- "to take to or for oneself; take possession of."
- "to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate: He appropriated the trust funds for himself."
I used the word in the former sense, although it seems clear that now that "consent" has been obtained, it can't and won't be withdrawn.
Not here to defend Chavez.
Submitted by blablablather on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 6:42pm.
Not here to defend Chavez. Just trying to be objective about just which media is being objective, if such a thing is possible. When one kind of media points a finger at another, it should be careful about it's own motives, don't you think?
Pretty funny perspective
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 7:39pm.
The motives here are clear: "Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias."
The AP and the establishment press's motives are supposed to be to objectively present the truth. When a reporter describes self-evidently authoritarian moves as "bold," he's not being objective.
As far as this post is concerned, mission accomplished.
Oh, and I (and we) aren't on trial.
I would say in this case it
Submitted by blablablather on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 9:28pm.
I would say in this case it seems more like "getting people worked up over not much" - not "exposing or combating"
So would you get worked up if some historian said the invasion of Poland was a bold move?
Think about it.
Oh we will Dead Zippers.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 1:24am.
Why do so many trolls act and type in the same manner?
And I see the fallacious argument in your 2nd line as well.
Interesting debate style, you
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 7:44pm.
Interesting debate style, you make a point, Tom refutes it handily, so you change the topic. He's really got you running doesn't he?
A very rare instance of a liberal troll's name---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:53pm.
being "appropriate". (adjective)
-blablablather-
blather - (noun) - voluble or nonsensical talk.
MD
I'm only talking about the
Submitted by blablablather on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:05am.
I'm only talking about the words here dude. I come here like you all looking for cases of bias in the MSM - sometimes I get it, but most of the time I get this puny lame BS like in this article. Google "Hitler boldly" and tell out of the dozen hits that you find in 5 minutes that the authors are all pro Third Reich. Do you get it yet?
I used to buy into what this site had, but then I started realizing how much of it was just this or that little bit to get people worked up. I don't see much of what should be here, which is cases of how we are being lied to.
so maybe I am disallusioned with this site, but I still know things ain't right.
No, you're apparently here to
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:41am.
No, you're apparently here to ask snide,impertinent, and crappy little questions that detour the thread. The choice of words here is one way we are being lied to. Bias comes in all forms and sizes, from big to small and it's the small things that are so insidious because the bias isn't immediately recognizable. If you don't recognize that, then it makes a lie of what you profess to being all about.
Well, dude---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:46am.
being retired, I have lots of time to spend perusing NewsBusters; and in doing so, have quite likely read all of the blather you include in your posts.
Your username, I say again, is appropriate in that basically all I have seen you offer so far is tedious bullshit.
The "complaints" you list are more like liberal criticism or an eye hook used as a means of drawing attention to and a bullseye on, NewsBusters, rather than actually putting forth any constructive criticism.
Anyone with a functioning brain should be disillusioned with what Lib-Dims have done over the last forty years and over the last two specifically.
If you are "disallusioned (sic) with this site", an honest appraisal would be acknowledged, appreciated, and possibly acted upon.
I don't believe your post meets that criteria.
MD
"Puny lame BS"
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:55am.
Wow.
Giving near compliments as James did to a clear authoritarian who is edging towards dictatorial powers is "puny."
Not only is it not "puny" in isolation, it's another example of a 50-year pattern of press sympathy and/or support for Latin American communist dictators going back to Castro, and really an 80-plus year pattern going back to the New York Times and Walter Duranty.
If you want flat-out falsehoods, this, this, and this should hold you. There's plenty of that at this site too.
But the subtle bias is important, as Chris Norman noted, particularly at the AP, because its content is so widely distributed to thousands of media outlets that more often than not don't have enough time to review the copy they receive.
Subject:
Submitted by blablablather on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:15am.
I appreciate your return posts. You sometimes and others keep trying to make me some liberal or chavez sympathizer, which I am not and really has nothing to do with what I am trying to say. Others may disagree, but I am not a total idiot. I understand subtlety and nuance. I am simply saying that the author seems to read an awful lot into one word, and I don't think it offers much to the public dialogue about media bias, and that it is someone ironic in that sense. How's that for nuance?
I will read your example of falsehoods because I am genuinely interested, but I am done with this thread because I do have a job and when people start criticizing me for short sentences and spaces between paragraphs, it is time to move on.
Keep the faith guys.
Yes. You do have a job.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:25pm.
Is it a union job? In Hollywood? On a children's TV show?
Playing even stupider than you are, which is incredibly stupid as it is, does not suit you.
Unions suck. Right?
Elected by decree
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 6:48pm.
"If a legislative body (which is voted into power) votes to give a leader greater power (taking from the legislative bodies power), can that be considered "appropriating" power by the leader?"
It is when the majority of the members of that "elected "body was selected by said leader who defied public will and made opposing legislative candidates "ineligible" for candidacy.
Do you know what that is called? It's called Despotism.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
As I said - it's not
Submitted by blablablather on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:08am.
As I said - it's not about Chavez. The article ain't about him either. He's pretty indefensible the way I see it.
Of then there is the possibility
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 1:46pm.
That a member of the elite MSM is a moron unfamiliar with the English language merely abusing the word as is their way.
The only real difference between Obama and Chavez is...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 2:46pm.
...one of them is not a Muslim.
In all other respects they are two peas in a pod. Chavez is somewhat further ahead on the "progress" curve than Obama, but Obama is right behind him.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 3:03pm.
Great one!!! :)
Btw, I was watching a movie on TCM the other night, "Buck and the Preacher", with Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte, and in perusing their bios I sadly stumbled upon this quote from Belafonte:
"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush, says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people support your revolution."
- Remarks made by Harry Belafonte to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez in January 2006
Liberalism/Socialism and BDS really are sick, twisted diseases.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Deo, die-o
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 3:13pm.
Belafonte is one of a few people that I wouldn't mind seeing dead, just hurry up and get that way.
I get sick of comments like that from him, Glover and etc. They are on a list of "must avoid movies" that grows longer and longer.
-Jon
Shy,
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 6:40pm.
Harry is about as useless a one hit wonder as you will ever find. That guy is so bitter he can't even attract leeches in the jungle.
Oh, and I failed to mention above that Obama did actually beat Hugo to the punch when it came to seizing control of the Internet.
They both are reading from the same manifesto.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Sounds like the out-going 111th Congress
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 2:59pm.
What the outgoing National Assembly is doing is taking advantage of Christmas to legislate behind the country's back," said Julio Borges, an opposition congressman-elect. "They're approving a bunch of laws that are aimed solely at concentrating power." Anyone else see an eerie similarity to our "lame duck" 111th Congress?Yes. Good catch.
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:32am.
Yes. Good catch.
ugh...
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 3:03pm.
I hate this new site and the way it threads... I keep thinking I'm "replying" to someone when I'm not. :p
- Perturbed Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Chavez - Obama
Submitted by Walker01049 on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 5:14pm.
Interchangeable
Yea, well...
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 6:49pm.
Hitler was being "bold" when he invaded Poland, you know.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The German Reichstag voted to
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:34am.
The German Reichstag voted to give Hitler "emergency powers" - does that mean he was lawful and, in effect, admirable?