My Commentary on World Events as I Follow the Jets-Colts Game

As I follow online the glory that is the Jets currently beating the Colts in the second quarter, I decided that there is not many better moments than to comment on world affairs.  So here it goes.

I was reading the New York Times for the day's scoop on world affairs (this is not a joke; I do in fact read the New York Times to get news).  One article caught my eyes.  It was titled "Anti-Chavez Channel is Taken Down."  Given my strong dislike for Mr. Chavez, I felt the need to comment on this event.

Regarding this article, what else is new in Chavez's personal socialist fiefdom that is Venezuela?  Obviously this is a major cause for concern as Chavez increasingly takes after the mold of his old friend Fidel Castro.  Now, apparently TV channels that do not broadcast his long, boring, nonsensical speeches cannot exist.  It used to be that they just could not survive as regular network TV stations, but apparently, the rule now applies to cable TV channels as well.  On one hand, it shows that Chavez is becoming nervous because people do not support him as much as they used to.  High inflation, a recession, and a periodic lack of important things like electricity generally tend to hurt a politician's approval rating wherever they may rule, and it seems that the economic and, to a lesser extent, political conditions in Venezuela made people watch and listen to the opposition more than they used to.  Thus, the need on Chavez's part to shut it all down and try desperately to hold onto his power.  On the other hand, it shows that the days of "nice Chavez" that only went after imperialist, exploitation-loving oil and mining companies are over.  Even the average Venezuelan is very much affected by the new orders, and the restriction of information is bound to have serious consequences for Venezuelans in the future as they look at their country and the world around them.

While none of this surprises me, what is perhaps even more troublesome for me than the ever narrowing freedoms of speech and press in Venezuela is the American response.  The NYT article simply says that "The U.S. Embassy also saw cause for concern," followed by a statement by an embassy spokesperson.  To me, this issue should be more than just a cause for concern.  In the good ol' Bush days, this would have led to Bush blasting Chavez for the move and Chavez responding by calling Bush "el diablo."  Now, with Obama trying to be nice with everyone, including those who are not very nice to the US, it seems like we will hear of very little coming out of the White House or the State Department.  Perhaps Obama should start realizing that bringing brownies over to people like Fidel and Hugo does not make them any more pleasant or beneficial of neighbors.  Obama should toughen up so that Chavez does not get too comfortable ruling over his manor and treating his people like serfs.  While the relationship between the US and Venezuela was often loud and boisterous during the Bush years, Latin America and the rest of the world saw that men like Chavez need to be contained at the very least.  Will Obama have the same "cojones" to stand up to Chavez's threatening moves towards his Latin American neighbors, his domestic opposition, and the basic freedoms of his people?  That remains to be seen.  In the mean time, I guess all we can do is shake our fists at Chavez and hope that the imploding ruin that is the Venezuelan economy will nudge the Venezuelan people to take their country back from the Lieutenant Colonel Chavez.

Wow, it is now half time, and the Jets are up 17-13 in Indy.  Perhaps the question of the day, much more important than the freedoms of speech and press in Venezuela, should be whether the Jets will be able to defend successively for another thirty minutes against the offensive machine that is Peyton Manning.