The then President, Perez, was himself the product of a coup. And he went on to be a corrupt butcher. A coup is a political act, it's not a crime, other than in the eyes of those who support the original corrupt regime.
You mean this Perez? The one who was elected twice, first in '74 and then again in '89? The last successful military coup in Venezuela was in 1958, so I am not sure how that makes any of the Perezs a product of a coup. Unless you consider every president of Venezuela after 1858 to be a product of a coup. Now Marcos Perez was appointed president after the 1948 coup and before the 1958 coup, so maybe you could consider him to have benefited from a coup, but that is as close as it gets.
You would not be able to run a military coup in the US and then run for president later, when it failed.
The laws of the USA are certainly no standard for morality.
No, but in general this law is a good idea. Someone doesn't like the way things are run and tries to change them by force. Not by a populist movement, but by taking control of the military, and then failing. So what do you do? Let them run for president and then turn the office into a position they can hold forever? It does not make sense. I can't say that I have talked to 50% of the Venezuelan population, but I have never met someone who liked Chavez during the time I was there. Everyone thought that his 2nd, 3rd and 4th re-elections were rigged. Whether they were or not, I can't say. But if Chavez really wanted to do things right the first time, he should have ran for president the first time instead of using the military. Obviously there wasn't anything preventing him from becoming president, since he did finally run and win.
BTW, keep in mind that under the American legal system a County-level official who flat-out refuses to implement a state-level policy is actually supporting that policy. To sue to get a policy over-turned you generally need something called "Standing," and the easiest way to get Standing to Sue is be damaged by a law. If the Kansas City School Board had said "we dislike segregation, so we'll let this kid go to school," Brown vs. Board of Education probably does not happen.
In this case it may not matter because other counties did release the info, and the Paper may sue the hold-out. But in general a County-Level official who flat-out refuses to enforce an Unconstitutional policy is protecting that policy from the Courts.
That is entirely wrong. There are several ways that this law can be overturned. First, the newspaper now has standing to sue the county. Second, the state Attorney General now has standing to sue the county. Finally, the county should has always had standing to sue the state. Prior to this action, only the county had any standing to file suit. If this county withholds the information so publicly, then it may encourage other counties to do the same. That increases the likelihood that someone will eventually file suit and take this case to the NY State Supreme court. Prior to this action, no one but the county could show that there may be damages due to the application of this law. The only damages to the county would have been the costs associated with complying with the FIA request. It's very unlikely the county could have won on such grounds. However, the odds of them winning on the basis that the information should not be made public, when sued by the state or the newspaper are likely much higher.
How is that any different than the people that refused to sit on the back of a bus in the south during the 60's?
You mean Rosa Parks, who was sitting in the back of the bus? She did not sit in the white section, and did not sit in the front of the bus. How can we take your statements seriously when your 60s references are incorrect.
I'll just go ahead and quote Wikipedia for you: "Near the middle of the bus, her row was directly behind the ten seats reserved for white passengers."
Secondly, she is not the only person who failed to follow orders on the bus. Hers is just the most famous example. There are examples of people who did not sit in the colored section at all.
The difference is that in the first case this are county officials who refuse to do their duty. When in function they are to abide by the law, plain and simple. If they do not, they ought to be fired, just like any employee will be fired if they openly refuse to follow orders by their boss.
If such a county official thinks the law is not just, they should still fulfil their duties under that law, in this case providing the information. And after that they may go on TV or whatever, still in function, and say that they do not agree with these regulations and that they will work hard to have the law changed.
The second case is private citizens not abiding by the law, and by breaking it openly try to draw attention to this issue.
So you're saying that people cannot stand for what is right in an official capacity? I can tell you right now that I would gladly be fired than to do something that I felt was dangerous to others, immoral, or unjust (of course, I don't have a family so I can be more risky). They claim they do not want to release the information because it puts people in danger. They are well within their rights to withhold the information. They are not immune from the consequences, however. They could very well end up in jail, or could be fired. That's their choice. It's not like they are secretly and quietly denying a Freedom of Information Act request. They are openly denying it, and stating their case. I have no doubt in my mind that if the Supreme Court rules that they must release the information, they will do so. I will gladly take some official openly defying the law over someone who does everything they are told to do without thought or consideration. This is not like a corporation at all. It is not their boss saying "Make 100 widgets before the end of business."
What's funny to me is the same people who want guns based on an amendment to the constitution so they can change the government if it's ever needed... are the same people who get furious at people who want to stop people from getting the government to make change.
Pro-Gun: "I need a gun in case I ever need to protest against my government and change the laws." Anti-Gun: "I want to peacefully get my government to change the laws." Pro-Gun: "You are anti American."
From an outsiders perspective it seems all the people who are pro guns want to use them to stop people from making the changes that are exactly the reason they say they need to have them. It seems like just pure insanity.
I would say that they are calling them anti-american because the 2nd amendment to the constitution expressly allows people to own guns. If they want to change that, they are going to have to pass a constitutional amendment. Not that name calling is mature, by any means. I've never heard of an anti-gun politician calling for a constitutional amendment, however. In fact the queen of gun control herself, Dianne Feinstein, has a concealed weapons permit. They are almost impossible to get in California, too, unless you live in specific counties. I would consider her desire to disarm her constituents to be very hypocritical.
The fact that Venezuela has a president who was arrested and convicted of a failed military coup in the 90's just goes to show how messed up their political system is.
Huh? The USA started out with a revolution.
Their constitution hasn't changed since he tried to overthrown the government. At least not before he had them change the constitution to allow his multiple re-elections. What kind of system allows criminals to hold such high and important offices?
You would not be able to run a military coup in the US and then run for president later, when it failed. In fact, a military coup is entirely different than a revolution of the people, in the first place.
Anyone else read the arrogant comment attributed to some unnamed source at Intel, stating that Intel was frustrated with "everyone doing a half-assed Google TV so it's going to do it themselves and do it right." ?
So, not surprisingly, Intel has now run into "delays" in securing agreements with content providers (in this case, the word "delay" means a quantity of time as large as forever). Why on earth would Intel believe that they have the consumer electronics clout to pull this off where Apple and Google continue to fail?
And who in their right mind at Intel decided to blast the media with their arrogant claims before they actually secured the elusive content agreements? Are they this completely incompetent as to think that Internet TV has anything at all to do with their fabulous semiconductor technology, instead of realizing it has everything to do with negotiation and leverage?
The kool-aid must run strong...
Simple. Intel will just add an instruction set to their processors that make bit torrenting easier, faster, and more reliable. That would scare the media companies into playing ball.
But think about this a step further. Presumably, the people who are doing all of the threatening (clearly highly intimidating threats otherwise guards wouldn't be called in) are supposed to be the 'good guys' gun carriers, not the bad guy criminals who aren't supposed to have guns in the first place. This whole thing says a lot about the perceived power a gun holder has over someone without. Good guy or bad, own a gun and you start to feel power enough to turn into a thug.
And aren't the thugs what the good guy gun owners want to defend against?
As I said in a comment above, we have no idea who (if anyone) made these threats. The way that they published the information before makes me think they are attention whores. We all know attention whores do what they can to get more attention. But lets assume they were threatened. We still do not know who the people threatening them are, whether they own guns, whether they even live in the same time zone as the newspaper, etc. There are plenty of crazy people out there who would get a kick out of making such threats. I would agree making such threats would not qualify one as a responsible gun owner, however.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
