Immortality Is...

...not, contrary to popular belief, living eternally. Nay, immortality is being immortalized in memory, be it a person’s or society’s, for all eternity. We, as humans, focus upon the wrong thing, the concept of living forever. We instead should focus upon that quest for pure memory, for existing beyond our years as an idolized and idealized version of ourselves, hoisted up in memory for deeds both great and horrific.

“Who has achieved immortality?” you may ask. Many a great people, who started out humble and meek, rose to greatness and achieved a power greater than any single man should ever possess. Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Robert LeRoy Parker, Guy Fawkes, Mary Tudor, Mary Magdalene, Mother Teresa and a host of other men and women have achieved this grand dream, the dream of perpetual existence. Tyrant or saint, queen or libertarian, butcher or savior, they are known for deeds tremendous in scope and terrifying in reality. We remember them as men and women who have achieved great or monstrous deeds, but what of the true man or woman behind the veil?

Do not remember these people for the events they perpetuated; instead, remember them for why they perpetuated these events, why they were the one remembered.

(This is a short vignette on remembrance as a response to Saint Patrick's Day. Remember his for what he did, not for being Irish. Remember his day not as a day of drinking and merriment but as a day of dreams and victory.)

The U.S. Media and Hugo Chavez

CLICK to hear a discussion of this post on Australia's #1 Podcast "G'Day World"

In December 1998, a new President was democratically elected to lead the Republic of Venezuela, one of the United States’ leading suppliers of oil (1). Hugo Chávez, a left wing, ex-coup leader with an open, unapologetic distaste for U.S. foreign policy and a determination to give his own country’s government a complete overhaul, was immediately portrayed by the mainstream U.S. media as a threat. It’s no secret that socialist and third world countries are consistently given a bad name by the American press, but the case of Venezuela has been one of constant personal attack on the President himself. Since December 1998, the media has been used consistently as a method of antagonizing Chávez, employing tactics that promote a culture of negativity toward him amongst the American people. Now one could argue that things are bit different now - Hugo and President Bush have been touring concurrently through Latin American countries, and while the fiery Venezuelan has been met with open arms, Bush has been welcomed at every stop with fierce demonstrations and burning effigies. What I want to look at here, though, is the context that coverage of this situation has been built within. Bush may have low approval ratings, etc. but anyone following the relationship between Bush and Chavez via the mainstream media will not be looking at the most recent events with a fresh mind. We’re going to do a little case study, primarily referring to the New York Times, and take a look at three of the tactics the press has used to make sure that any coverage of Chavez whatsoever is positioned in a negative way. This may seem obvious to Frigidspeak readers, (what? the media is biased? gasp!) but even if I’m preaching to the choir, I think an explicit investigation plays an important role in spreading some kind of media literacy about these issues. So to go about this essay stylz, the three tactics we’re going to analyze are: labeling, the placing of blame, and the use of traditional American values to promote anti-Chávez ideals.

Labels

President Chávez has been described by the U.S. media under a number of labels, and few of them complimentary. The first example is one employed at the beginning of this post, namely, his identity as the leader of a failed coup-attempt in 1992, resulting in his imprisonment. Despite having returned in 1998 to win the presidency by legitimate, democratic means, the American people are constantly reminded of this piece of his past in a derogatory way, seeming to suggest he is unfit for leadership because of it; an ex-convict, by American standards. From the New York Times front page headline announcing his initial election victory, “Venezuelans Elect An Ex-Coup Leader As Their President”(2) to an article over two years later regarding changes he’s making in the school system, where he’s described in the first paragraph as “a leftist 46-year-old former army colonel who once led an unsuccessful coup attempt”(3), and countless examples in between, this label repeatedly establishes the context within which the American audience is lead to evaluate President Chávez. Granted, this association is arguably subtle, as there are no examples to cite of explicit references to the disparaging implications of being an ex-coup leader. Though it may also be said that it is exactly this subtlety that is so easily overlooked and therefore effective in shaping public opinion, President Chávez is also consistently referred to as a dictator, despite his unmistakable position as a democratically elected leader. This seemed to begin in 1999 when Chávez introduced his new Bolivarian Constitution (4), containing a complete reworking of Venezuela’s previous charter. The day of the vote, the New York Times ran a story on page A3 stating that:

“Venezuela has the chance…to accelerate what its president…terms a ‘peaceful revolution’ or to reject what his opponents say would be a constitutional dictatorship befiting Mr. Chavez at the expense of the millions of poor citizens he says he represents (5). Rarely has a political fight divided this country, the world’s third largest oil exporter and major supplier to the United States, with such passion and invective” (6).

Having presented Chávez’s opponents as equal in number to his allies, the next day’s follow up story relating the vote’s actual outcome was far more humble. Tucked away on page A11 under the obstinate headline “Venezuelans Give Chávez All The Powers He Wanted”, reporter Larry Rohter writes: “Brushing aside predictions by the opposition that Mr. Chávez would use the new charter to give himself near-dictatorial powers, 71% of voters cast their ballots for the new Constitution”(7). This label becomes increasingly casual, particularly in the weeks leading up to his own remarkably temporary removal from power when his leadership is referred to as a “combative brand of left-wing authoritarianism”(8), his potential resignation a “choice between democracy and dictatorship”(9) and his time in power the “turbulent three-year reign of a mercurial strongman”(10).

In addition to being labeled an ex-convict and dictator, associations are constantly made between Hugo Chávez and Cuba’s leader, Fidel Castro, (who’s getting better!). Never explicitly referring to Chávez as a communist, it seems enough to discredit him as being labeled a friend and associate of Cuba, a nation whose politics have lead the United States to enforce a four decade-long trade embargo(11). This label was established as early as the day before Chávez was even elected, when he was cited as having "visited Cuba and praised President Fidel Castro and ‘the Cuban way’" (12). To question the validity of his Bolivarian Constitution, Larry Rohter wrote in his December 15, 1999 article: “’I feel happy to follow the path of Fidel,’ [Chávez] said during a state visit to Havana last month, adding that Venezuela was swimming ‘toward the same sea as the Cuban people,’ which he described as ‘a sea of happiness, social justice and true peace’"(13). He is spoken of as “strengthening ties with American antagonists like Fidel Castro”(14) and in the midst of his being temporarily overthrown, it is stated that “President Fidel Castro and Mr. Chávez had formed a close friendship”(15). This label ties in closely with a commonly accepted explanation of media bias: Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Propaganda Model as discussed in their book Manufacturing Consent.(16). The fifth of five filters within this model is anti-communism, or as David Cromwell explains when updating the filter to the context of our times, “’the enemy’ or an ‘evil dictator’”(17). It is herein argued that the media employs the tactic of creating or emphasizing an evil dictator - all the more applicable to associate him with an actual communist - who is then “useful, essential even, in justifying strategic geopolitical maneuvering and the defense of corporate interests around the world, while mollifying home-based critics of such behaviour” (Cromwell). This is further proof that the labeling of Chávez is hardly beyond the usual methods of the mainstream U.S. media, yet his being referred to as a communist-friendly, dictatorial ex-convict is not the only tactic employed to advance the American people’s culture of negativity toward him.

Blame

Any reference made to the actual relations between the United States and Venezuela places the latter in an explicitly antagonistic role. Hugo Chávez in particular is blamed for any animosity between the two countries, as the media consistently portrays the U.S. as making every possible effort to maintain a good relationship. The coverage of President George W. Bush’s first summit in Montreal included a list of the obstacles impeding his ability to effectively negotiate with Latin America, emphasizing the fact that “Venezuela refused to accept the schedule for putting the hemispheric trade pact into operation”(18) without offering any of Venezuela’s justifications for doing so. A month later, Chávez, “an ardent nationalist…irritated American officials by refusing to allow their anti-narcotics flights to overfly his nation”(19) and later that year “annoyed Washington with his leftist pronouncements and reservations about American military aid to fight the war against drugs in Colombia,” effectively “test[ing] the limits of US tolerance”(20). Four days later, and a mere six months before President Chávez is forced temporarily from power, “his displays of friendship with leaders like Presidents Fidel Castro of Cuba and Saddam Hussein of Iraq…also irritated the United States, though American policy toward Venezuela remains one of engagement, rather than exclusion”(21). Though this coverage seems overt in its bias, it is arguably the language itself and not only the message conveyed that is of the most concern. Words like ‘irritate’, ‘annoy’, ‘refuse’, and the idea of ‘testing the limits of one’s tolerance’, when combined, speak explicitly to the notion of an impudent child misbehaving, ignoring the rules established for its own good by an older, wiser, ‘tolerant’ authority figure. Venezuela may be young in it’s history of democracy, but this case of one political leader expressing their disagreement with the policies of another is portrayed by the U.S. media instead, as a headstrong dictator needlessly serving as a thorn in the United States’ proverbial side. Rather than explain the alternative viewpoints of each side, Hugo Chávez is described as “eager to drive a wedge between the United States and Latin America”(22) regardless of any attempts reportedly made by President Bush to the contrary.

All-American Values:

Robert A. Hackett said of foreign news coverage in the Canadian Journal of Political Science that it “reflects Western biases by emphasizing ‘coups and catastrophes and other sensational and stereotyped depictions’ rather than positive and long-term achievements”(23). David L. Altheide took this claim a step further in the Public Opinion Quarterly, saying that “news organizations present negative and critical images of other countries because of procedures and guidelines awash in ideological interests compatible with Western values and policies”(24). One of the most effective ways the media can promote negativity toward Venezuela and its President is through the use of these ‘ideological interests’. Positioning Chávez as anti-democracy, or threatening to the American ‘way of life’ allowed by Venezuela’s oil exports, effectively establishes a context within which the American people approach the entire situation - one of patriotism and camaraderie against a perceived common enemy. When other methods fail, the media turn to pre-established American values, aligning Chávez with the likes of Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein (25). Two days before Chávez’s removal, the front page of the New York Times proclaimed “Mideast and Venezuela Turmoil Sends Oil Prices into Wild Swing”(26), explicitly blaming Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chávez for the high gas prices plaguing innocent Americans. Perhaps the most ironic article was one entitled “Latin America’s Muzzled Press”, placing Chávez as anti-freedom of speech, claiming that “he routinely launches into diatribes against the press, and his followers have physically attacked media outlets”(27). Hackett speaks of “US patterns of foreign coverage (such as a sensitivity to perceived threats to US interests or a bipolar Cold War view of the world which may ignore or distort the specificity of Third World problems”, all of which seem to culminate in one statement made by Pat Robinson on his delightful Fox News show The 700 Club in reference to Hugo Chávez’s assassination:

“I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger…controlling a huge pool of oil that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another 200-billion-dollar war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with”(28).

Clearly this is ridiculous. But you have to recognize that as much as we make fun of Fox News, in many parts of the United States, it’s actually a trusted, mainstream news source. Regardless of the success of spreading such an absurd viewpoint, this serves as an example of just how President Hugo Chávez is being portrayed.

Now next week I’m planning to write about public broadcasting in Canada, particularly the role of the CBC, and my beloved George Stroumboulopoulos. As a little teaser, if you will, his coverage on The Hour of Chavez was presented in the form of a list, The Top 5 Reasons Bush Hates Chavez. Long live alternative media and publicly funded broadcasting, the benefits and perspectives of which we’ll take a closer look at next week.

Endnotes

(1) Rohter, Larry. “U.S., Irritated by Criticism, Calls Envoy Home From Venezuela.” New York Times 3 Nov 2001: A4
(2) Rohter, Larry. “Venezuelans Elect An Ex-Coup Leader As Their President”. New York Times 7 Dec 1998: A1
(3) Rohter, Larry. “Venezuela Leader Broadens Focus on Reshaping Schools”. New York Times 7 May 2001: A4
(4) Bolivarian Constitution. 2006. Embassy of Venezuela in the United States. 16 October 2006. http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/intro.htm
(5) emphasis added
(6) Rohter, Larry. “A Divided Venezuela Votes on New Charter Today”. New York Times 15 Dec 1999: A3
(7) Rohter, Larry. “Venezuelans Give Chávez All The Powers He Wanted”. New York Times. 16 Dec 1999: A11
(8) “Latin America’s Muzzled Press”. New York Times. 4 Apr 2002: A22
(9) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela Woes Worsen as State Oil Company Calls Strike”. New York Times. 9 Apr 2002: A3
(10) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela’s Chief Forced to Resign; Civilian Installed”. New York Times. 13 Apr 2002: A1
(11) Cuba and the United States. 2006. PBS NewsHour. 18 October 2006. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/cuba/index.html
(12) Schemo, Diana Jean. “Renegade Officer Favoured in Venezuelan Election”. New York Times. 6 Dec 1998: A4
(13) Rohter, Larry. “A Divided Venezuela Votes on New Charter Today”. New York Times 15 Dec 1999: A3
(14) Rohter, Larry. “U.S., Irritated by Criticism, Calls Envoy Home From Venezuela.” New York Times 3 Nov 2001: A4
(15) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela’s Chief Forced to Resign; Civilian Installed”. New York Times. 13 Apr 2002: A1
(16) Herman, Edward S, and Chomsky, Noam. “Manufacturing Consent”. New York: Pantheon, 2002.
(17) Cromwell, David. The Propaganda Model: An Overview. 2002. Chomsky.Info. 14 October 2006. http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----.htm.
(18) DePalma, Anthony. “Talks Tie Trade in the Americas to Democracy”. New York Times. 23 Apr 2001: A1
(19) Marquis, Christopher. “New Drug Plan Shifts Focus in Latin America”. New York Times. 17 May 2001: A12
(20) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela Doesn’t See ‘Carlos’ as a Terrorist”. New York Times. 13 Oct 2001: A5
(21) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela Waits for ‘Revolution’ to Bear Fruit”. New York Times. 17 Oct 2001: A3
(22) “Mr. Bush Looks South”. New York Times. 23 Mar 2002: A16
(23) Hackett, Robert A. “Coups, Earthquakes and Hostages? Foreign News on Canadian Television”. Canadian Journal of Political Science 22.4 (1989): 809-825
(24) Altheide, David L. “Media Hegemony: A Failure of Perspective.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 48. 2 (1984): 476-490
(25) Forero, Juan. “Venezuela Waits for ‘Revolution’ to Bear Fruit”. New York Times. 17 Oct 2001: A3
(26) Banerjee, Neela. “Mideast and Venezuela Turmoil Sends Oil Prices Into Wild Swing.” New York Times. 9 Apr 2002: A1
(27) “Latin America’s Muzzled Press”. New York Times. 4 Apr 2002: A22
(28) Pat Robinson Clarifies His Statement Regarding Hugo Chavez. 24 Aug 2005. Pat Robinson. 12 Oct 2006. http://www.patrobertson.com/pressreleases/hugochavez.asp.

Why Blame Marijuana?

I visited cnn.com today and noticed a report on marijuana smugglers in the States. I know that the laws in the states for marijuana smuggling or even possession have greater penalties than they do here in Canada. This report was more about what state would prosecute these “felons” but they also mentioned that there was a definite War on Drugs. To prove a point I want to switch focus for a bit, so let’s talk about cigarettes for a minute. Scientists and doctors denied the fact that cigarettes cause cancer and so of course the entire world believed them and kept on lighting up. The government was happy because they could make money off of cigarettes easily and so they kept cigarettes in process despite their proven deadly contents.

Now let’s look at marijuana. It doesn’t kill. When a person smokes marijuana the THC resin does not stay in their lungs. Marijuana actually raises a person’s metabolism granted that the munchies do not get the better of them. I also began to think of those anti-marijuana ads that have been on TV more so in the last couple of years. One in particular involves a guy who is smoking a joint and whilst doing this, he forgets to pick up his little brother from soccer practice. I hate these commercials for one very good reason. The marijuana is not the culprit in this case, it is the guy’s lack of complete and utter responsibility. If you have “shit to do” then DON’T SMOKE UP. It’s simple, and you can’t blame the drug, you blame the person who is stupid enough to get high before he has to do important errands. Think of it this way: if that same guy in the commercial was an alcoholic and got completely smashed before he had to go pick up his little brother from soccer practice, people wouldn’t blame his lack of responsibility on the alcohol would they? They will blame the person, “poor Billy Joe is an alcoholic” so why do we blame marijuana?

So why can’t the government and some anti-marijuana individuals think of marijuana in the same way? I would think it would be a no brainer and I consider marijuana right up there in the same category with alcohol consumption. It lowers your inhibitions to properly function depending on how much is consumed of either alcohol or marijuana. I know some will argue that marijuana isn’t legalized because you can’t test for the presence of THC in the body. I did hear somewhere that they can quickly swab the underarm of a person which can excrete THC. Some would also say that marijuana is bad just because the government hasn’t legalized it at all; people like to trust the government. But think about this: I’m sure all those drugs that you see advertised on television for allergies & bladder control have MANY more effects than marijuana, but people take those pills and some of them have been recalled due to adverse effects to the body, including death. People do this because the ole mighty trusting government says it’s ok. Hmmm...

If the government legalizes marijuana they won’t be able to make an ample amount of money from it because people can just grow it themselves. They would actually lose money because they would have to shell out the big bucks in order to create a plan of action of how they can test a person who is under the suspicion of being high if they are say, driving a car for example. In Max’s opinion, I’d rather have the money go towards that than to the “war on terror”.



References:

CNN Marijuana threshold?
http://edition.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/03/14/lavandera.catch.and.release.cnn

School vs. Max

Hi everyone, I regret to inform you that my post for this week will be late. With school getting very busy it's difficult for me to write an article. But do not fret! I promise you all I will be writting once again! As for now, hope all is well, and keep on checking in!

Max

Call to Arms: Identifying Class

I was travelling by train today as a Via Rail first class passenger where I found a distinct separation of class. Not actively so, where people actively disdained those of lower class, but passively making the lives of the lower class uncomfortable. For example, Union Station in Toronto has a separate lounge for 1st class passengers that has comfortable seating, free refreshments, and desks from which you can work while you wait for your train. What do Economy passengers get? A standing line where you could be waiting for several hours until your train is boarding. Quite unfair, I think. Also, free alcohol, high quality dinners, comfortable seating, and larger than average washrooms await your pleasure in first class. Now, if I can enjoy the perks of being first class, why should I be complaining, or even finding fault? Why not just enjoy my perks in silence? Because I have a roommate who does not have these accomodations, and there are many people who will only dream of being able to travel in such splendour. Why should they be subjugated to lesser travel accomodations just because they paid less?

You may say, "Because you paid more, you should get more." You may also say, "Executives deserve to be different from the rest." But both those statements, and many more similar to them, are products of the poorly designed system. Company executives are still people, no different than the high school teacher who taught you History (I was visiting my old high school, where my History teacher stopped me to talk for several painfully slow minutes, so forgive me) or the taxi driver who brings you to and from the train station, so why should they get any more special treatment because they have money? Oh right, "Because you paid more, you should get more." How about give the service, and the same price, to everybody? Exclusion is only the start of revolution, and the more you exclude, the more dangerous the revolution becomes. This brings me to the state of scoiety today: a society that has no more equality than Victorian England and no more fairness than Caesarian Rome, we've just given it a different name.

Capitalism. Free market economy. Independent wealth. These terms come up often enough when we consider society and who is running it. In order to be considered successful, you need to earn money. In order to earn money, you have to participate in the free market economy and compete. In order to compete and win in order to be considered successful, you need to be independently wealthy. Hmm...something doesn't seem right here. You need to have money to make money to be considered successful. This doesn't seem...oh, what is that term, oh, right...sane. It also means that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer just like every society of the past 2000 years. Capitalism, and a democracy run by capitalism, is only another name for an autocracy who reside at the top of the economic scale.
Doubtful is the nature of classes going to change; most likely it will be the method in which we define the class structure that changes; however, the more people who can see the class structure the more likely revolution will occur and the sooner we may be able to leave our greedy humanistic natures behind.

This is the first of several articles entitled "Call to Arms". These are published on the first Sunday (or Monday, as the case may be) and deal with the identification of the class system in today's society.

(I apologize for the late article - the server is having issues...thanks for your patience)