Looks as if there has been some movement toward “autonomy” by serveral provinces in Bolivia:
Given all of the attention paid to Morales’ move toward socialism, I’m surprised at the lack of attention this is getting so far in the U.S. media. NYT? Washington Post? AP? I mean, what could they want to avoid in a story about he wealthier, more business-oriented and natural gas-rich provinces near Santa Cruz wishing to avoid wrong-headed socialist agendas and to control their own fate?
Not gonna happen.
Oh, I don’t know - maybe Paraguay or Brazil could be convinced to accept these new territories. Chile ( War of the Pacific - Wikipedia ) and Paraguay ( Chaco War - Wikipedia ) have taken Bolivian territory before, even if it was quite a while ago… Or they might just support those regions in the case the Bolivian government decided it wanted to militarily force them to accede.
We’ll see what happens.
I don’t know either. It’s just that chances of what you describe tend towards zero.
By the way, care to venture a guess on your question? (i.e: “what could they want to avoid in a story about he wealthier, more business-oriented and natural gas-rich provinces near Santa Cruz wishing to avoid wrong-headed socialist agendas and to control their own fate?”)
I think I phrased the question pretty well to answer itself…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think I phrased the question pretty well to answer itself…[/quote]
Think again.
On a side note…
The irony in this picture cracks me up.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9QrKFN3BUxRUm-PQO8EdTzAUVAQD8T71N3G0
Freedom fighters.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I think I phrased the question pretty well to answer itself…
Think again.
On a side note…
Oh, I think it does.
BTW, what would Bolivia need to do to get a front page story like the ones that accompanied Morales’ election?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Oh, I think it does.[/quote]
Call me slow, but I just don’t see the answer in the question.
Take a minute to explain, please.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Oh, I think it does.
Call me slow, but I just don’t see the answer in the question.
lixy wrote:
Take a minute to explain, please.[/quote]
Stories that make it look as if left-wing socialism is not popular - and particularly those that show the productive class revolting against them - apparently don’t merit the same amount of coverage as stories that indicate rising socialism.
I see. So that’s part of the “liberal media” conspiracy to destroy the American way of life.
Morales’ election was a very important event. It’s like a Native American getting into the White House. Worse, it’s like a working class person winning the elections. The press covered it because it was a huge story. It was also part of the “left-wing” wave that swooped Latin America last year. It’s only natural that it gets front page coverage. Chaos and protests in some provinces is not that big a deal in Latin America. It’s pretty much the norm down there. Dare tell me the scale of unrest is anything close to the water wars the country has seen before Morales.
There aren’t stories in the US media sympathetic to the people of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and the others. I don’t see how you can claim that the NYT and AP support “left-wing socialism”. The NYT is a symbol of the American establishment and has been defending it ever since I started reading. Seriously, your claim is simply ridiculous.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I see. So that’s part of the “liberal media” conspiracy to destroy the American way of life.[/quote]
I don’t know how many times I will need to make this explanation, but here goes again:
There is no conspiracy.
It’s simply an “ivory tower” effect; i.e., most people in the media have liberal mindsets, so you get a feedback loop that doesn’t question liberal outlook or liberal slant on the news. There is no concerted effort, no secret back-room meetings, and no conspiracy. It’s simply the aggregate effect of having 90+% of reporters and editors (probably higher at certain places like the NYT) sharing the same liberal biases.
Or, to put it in a terminology that liberals may appreciate better, it is the direct result of a lack of diversity in outlook among those providing inputs and oversight.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Morales’ election was a very important event. It’s like a Native American getting into the White House. Worse, it’s like a working class person winning the elections. The press covered it because it was a huge story. It was also part of the “left-wing” wave that swooped Latin America last year. It’s only natural that it gets front page coverage. Chaos and protests in some provinces is not that big a deal in Latin America. It’s pretty much the norm down there. Dare tell me the scale of unrest is anything close to the water wars the country has seen before Morales.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but attempted secession in a country is a large story. Also, as a follow up to the “huge story,” it’s another large story if parts of what you reported as the trend of the left-wing swooping on Latin America appear to be unraveling. And if you appreciate dovetailing stories, perhaps Morales’ problems might be a nice theme piece with Chavez’ recent electoral setbacks?
But of course, stories challenging that theme of left-wing advance wouldn’t be as important as stories advancing that idea, right?
[quote]lixy wrote:
There aren’t stories in the US media sympathetic to the people of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and the others. I don’t see how you can claim that the NYT and AP support “left-wing socialism”. The NYT is a symbol of the American establishment and has been defending it ever since I started reading. Seriously, your claim is simply ridiculous.[/quote]
Do a search for all the threads on here covering the various studies that have chronicled the liberal media bias in various ways. Just because it’s not socialist enough for your tastes doesn’t mean it’s not significantly to the left of the median American viewpoint.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Oh, I think it does.
Call me slow, but I just don’t see the answer in the question.
Take a minute to explain, please.[/quote]
You are slow. Can I add stupid, and stump-headed as well?
How fucking hard is it to grasp what BB is trying to say?
Take a day off, go rape a 16 year-old girl, call her a slut, then come back. I am sure it will clear what is left of your pedophilic mind.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Not gonna happen.[/quote]
It could very well happen. If nothing else if brings a shit load of pressure on Morales. One thing I have learned about South America is that anything can happen at anytime. People there are well skilled at overthrowing governments. Especially in a place where the GNP is equaled by their cocaine exports. The coke makers have all the say in that country. If they aren’t happy, nobody is happy.