Venezuela's Chavez May Take Over [Private] Schools

[tritsofme]

Source: Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened on Monday to close or take over any private school that refuses to submit to the oversight of his socialist government as it develops a new curriculum and textbooks.

"Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants," said Chavez, speaking on the first day of classes.

All schools, public and private, must admit state inspectors and submit to the government's new educational system, or be closed and nationalized, with the state taking responsibility for the education of their children, Chavez said.

A new curriculum will be ready by the end of this school year, and new textbooks are being developed to help educate "the new citizen," said Chavez's brother and education minister Adan Chavez, who joined him a televised ceremony at the opening of a public school in the eastern town of El Tigre.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RNCP8O0&show_article=1

[bemildred]

1. Damn, who knew private schools could be regulated? nt

[movonne]

2. Not in this country...

[bemildred]

3. Which country?

Private schools in the USA are regulated, accredited, inspected, and so on. Home schools, it is true, you can do almost any damn fool thing ...

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Not home schools either.

You have to meet approved standards in most states or you are in for a regulatory nightmare.

[bemildred]

10. Well, I was involved in that sort of thing in California.

And it was pretty much roll-your-own. I don't know about other states.

[nealmhughes]

13. I know the Alabama law as I did a seminar paper on homeschooling 3 years ago:

"Private" schools have to teach the state approved courses and meet all safety requirments.

"Home schools" are at least supposed to document attendance and physical education, but can use any text they like.

"Religious schools" don't have to meet any standards of any sort, from safety to teaching the English language or any other criteria at all. They are free agents.

The home schools are not randomly inspected, and no one but the "staff" submits the paperwork to the local school board monthly, and only for attendance.

In effect, Chavez is doing exactly what the State of Alabama already does, minus mandating texts, but since they have to teach Alabama history in the 4th grade, I wonder how many texts there are geared for 4th graders save the ones the state already uses!

[brentspeak]

4. Can you say, "dictator"?

Chavez, who had some good ideas with nationalizing his country's oil industry, has turned into a total despot.

[bbinacan]

11. Despot without a doubt.

The man has become despicable.

[Peace Patriot]

27. "The man has become despicable." And what of the vast majority of the Venezuelan

people who support him and his government? Do you find THEM despicable?

Rightwing corporate news monopolies, and the global corporate predators they serve, often use this tactic of personalizing a social justice movement, by dwelling excessively on its leader or spokesperson, all the better to inspire hatred of an individual, so that they can topple (remove, "swift-boat," kidnap, assassinate) that leader, with impunity. That's what they're doing to this vast social justice movement--the Bolivarian Revolution--that has swept the Andes region of South America, with their hit pieces on Chavez. They ignore the huge support that this movement has; they ignore the millions of people involved in it; they ignore its tremendous benefits to the poor, and to society as a whole, and demonize a leader, to provide a context for obscure and criminal, U.S./Bush-backed, rightwing plots to destabilize countries with truly democratic, leftist (majorityist) governments (and, not incidentally, rich in oil, gas, minerals, forests, fresh water and other resources)--in this case, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina--and to covertly destroy their alliance, their democratic governance and their leadership, so that rightwing dictatorships can be re-installed.

You are buying into this "demonization" tactic, or at least promulgating it, by saying, "The man has become despicable," which is about as informative as the AP article that is quoted above. What of his recent 63% election win? What of his 70% approval rating? And what in fact did he really say? (The AP article is suspiciously empty of quotation marks.) And what do the vast majority of Venezuelans, who support this government, think of this educational policy? That is the important information, in my opinion--not what a government proposes, but how and why the policy was developed, and what the people think of it--information that is entirely absent from this article (by design), with UNATTRIBUTED "opposition" criticism as the ONLY comment. I don't give a rat's ass what ANONYMOUS "opponents" of the president think of it. I want to know about the opinions of Venezuelan educators, and ordinary citizens, with QUOTED, ATTRIBUTED sources, so that I can evaluate what they say about the proposal. This article is an empty sack, as to Venezuelan opinion, and a set-up for the UNATTRIBUTED "indoctrination of young Venezuelans" phrase in the last paragraph--which the OP fails to include. (See my analysis of the article, below.)

AP thus creates the impression (--that's what they trade in--impressions!) that Chavez is IMPOSING a policy that is somehow arbitrary and dictatorial, a man with a 70% approval rating, who keeps getting re-elected by the Venezuelan people, by ever increasing margins, no matter how many shit-fits Condi Rice throws and no matter how many millions of our tax dollars the Bush-purged CIA pours into Venezuela's small, rightwing "opposition."

As the Beatles once said, Chavez is more popular than Jesus. And the global corporate predators that AP shills for are increasingly on the outs, in South America, and about as popular as Lucifer (Chavez was right about that). People there have had it with Bushitism, and decades of murder and torture and exploitation. So AP tries to create the impression that Chavez is a "dictator" because, surely, all of these millions of people could not genuinely hate U.S. corporations and be genuinely acting, in concert, to rid their continent of these malefactors. They must be hypnotized by a demagogue!

Har-har!

So what do you find so "despicable" about Chavez? Do tell.

[EstoniaKat]

28. Amazing logic you have there

And I find it amazing that people like you continue to give comfort to this asshat.

When Chavez nationalized industrial assets, you said that foreign companies had exploited the poor of Venezuela.
When Chavez demanded and received dictatorial powers, you claim that he got them legitimately -- after all, he's more "popular than Jesus."
When they came for the television stations, people like yourself claimed that the broadcasters actually committed treason.

Now that's it's being reported that he's going to shove his propaganda spiel into the classroom, you blame the source -- the BBC.

"Useful idiots of the West," Lenin spoke of. Indeed.

[Laughing Mirror]

41. useful idiots of the west in love with George Bush

Does everybody in Estonia love our lord and master George Bush, or is it just you?

[paulk]

84. yes, it's true - everyone who questions Chavez loves Bush

I've known 5 year olds who can reason better than that...

[humbled_opinion]

138. Exactly.. .I smells a little Sulfa here...

Amazing how many can't see totalitarianism until its too late and when they wake up to the stolen democracy its too late to change it... Leave the decisions up to the people in open free and fair elections always... Majority rules.

[EstoniaKat]

105. LOL

No, seriously. You make me laugh. I voted Green in the last election.

But I smell a totalitarian when I smell one. My country has had lots of practice. And I don't need Sulphur to detect it.

So if I don't love Chavez, I love George Bush.

LOLZ.

Keep it coming.

[LanternWaste]

51. entertainment capital of my rather dull afternoon...

"And I find it amazing that people like you continue to give comfort to this asshat."

No more than some I'm sure, find it amazing that you continue to fall for the MSM.

Not that I care one way or the other-- but watching you guys raise your fists in righteous rage, snorting with indignation, and sounding for all intents and purposes like a fundamentalist preacher on a cable channel is the entertainment capital of my rather dull afternoon...

[EstoniaKat]

136. What I find sad is that instead of defending guys like this ...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/578526,CST-EDT-hunt28.article

You're defending neo-dictators like Chavez. Because he hates George Bush.

That's the definition of sad.

[Flanker]

137. What is sad is that you use a Chicago sun-times editorial

Haha If he wanted him dead he, he would be dead! A few bodyguards would not help him one bit. Besides Chavez also has bodyguards to protect him from the opposition (which you claim to support) I don't see you shedding any tears for potential assassinations.

[Peace Patriot]

76. Oh, right, I'm just a Stalinist tool for "this asshat." What do you do, read old CIA manuals

for tips on how to "frame" leftist governments?

How about some facts?

"When Chavez nationalized industrial assets, you said that foreign companies had exploited the poor of Venezuela."

Are you saying that foreign companies have NOT exploited the poor of Venezuela? And how does it hurt Venezuelans to have giant foreign oil corporations--like the ones who hijacked our military for their corporate resource war in the Middle East--and giant telecoms--like the ones who are trying to destroy internet freedom, and are cooperating with the Bushites on domestic spying--evicted from their country? We could use some of that "hurt" here!

---

"When Chavez demanded and received dictatorial powers, you claim that he got them legitimately -- after all, he's more 'popular than Jesus.'"

WHAT "dictatorial" powers? The ELECTED National Assembly VOTED to give him LIMITED economic powers--identical to those given PREVIOUS presidents of Venezuela, and very like the powers that Congress gave FDR during the Great Depression. How is that a "demand"? And how is that "dictatorial"--unless you agree with the robber barons of the Depression era that FDR was a "dictator"?

---

"When they came for the television stations, people like yourself claimed that the broadcasters actually committed treason."

"They" didn't "come for the television stations." The Chavez government denied a license renewal to use the public airwaves to ONE giant corporation that, in fact, DID commit treason. RCTV DIRECTLY aided the violent military coup attempt in 2002. They held coup meetings at their station, broadcast lies and disinformation on behalf of the coup, and hosted the triumphant coup press conference that announced the suspension of the Constitution, the suspension of the National Assembly, the suspension of the court system and the resignation of President Chavez (which was not true--they kidnapped him, and he refused to resign). If Faux News participated in a fascist coup here, that shutdown Congress and kidnapped Nancy Pelosi, would you approve continuing their license to use our PUBLIC airwaves? And Chavez did not "come for them." He waited for their 20 year license to run out, and simply did not renew it, which he had every right to do, under the law, and is a perfect example how an advocate of the people can employ the law on behalf of the people, against the power of global corporate predators. That station is now open to independent producers and to everyone who was previously excluded from the public airwaves. Kicking this traitorous global corporation, RCTV, out, and opening the station to indy producers, ENHANCES free speech in Venezuela, where rightwing corporate monopolies previously controlled all TV/radio broadcasting, and now only control MOST of them.

And what are YOU saying? That corporate news monopolies = free speech? Give me a break. The fascists STILL control MOST of the media in Venezuela. ONE station, that participated in the coup, lost their license. We would be a lot of better off HERE, if every corporate news monopoly got busted, and their licenses pulled and their assets seized for the common good. NONE of them are serving the public interest any more. Corporate monopolies are anti-democratic.

---

"Now that's it's being reported that he's going to shove his propaganda spiel into the classroom, you blame the source -- the BBC."

I did not blame the BBC. I have not read their article on this. The OP posts an ASSOCIATED PRESS article, and I DO blame AP--and have repeatedly blamed AP--for its hit pieces on Chavez. They, too, seem to be reading old CIA manuals.

---

Bottom-line, Venezuela is a DEMOCRACY, with open, transparent, and highly vetted and monitored elections (unlike here). If the people of Venezuela don't like this policy, they have every right to oppose it, to organize against it, and to get it changed, and they ultimately have the right and power to throw Chavez out--a right and a power that we here in the U.S. don't have any more, now that Bush's buds at Diebold and ES&S are "counting" all the votes with "trade secret" programming code, by arrangement of BOTH parties. A democracy can make mistakes. If it is truly a democracy, with transparent elections and true free speech (not corporate speech), the people can CORRECT or mitigate the mistakes. That is one measure of how little democracy we have here--we have been unable to correct huge mistakes, and, indeed, the horrible crime of the Iraq War. I don't know enough about this education policy to approve or disapprove of it. The AP article in immensely uninformative, and we'll see if the BBC article is any better. (In the past, the BBC has been only slightly better than awful on the South American left--and I've heard at least one BBC radio broadcast that was unbelievably bad. British corps have a lot of money tied up in the World Bank and in resource exploitation in South America, and the BBC is not above shilling for British corps.)

You use broad strokes to condemn Chavez on all the Bush-purged CIA and rightwing/corporate "talking points." You have not presented any facts to back them up. And on this basis, you call me a "useful idiot" and you call the President of Venezuela an "asshat." Sticks and stones, bro. Sticks and stones.

I think it is very important to understand what is happening in Venezuela, and throughout South America, where democracy is succeeding, at long last, and where the vast poor population is finally coming into its rightful power. The South American socialist model is like night and day from Leninism and Stalinism, and also from Cuban communism. It is DEMOCRATIC, and provably so, on every basic tenet of democratic procedure. It is the ALTERNATIVE to violent revolution. And it is NOT particularly anti-capitalist. It is a mixed model of socialism and capitalism with a strong component of social justice. Hugo Chavez is actually a centrist, although you wouldn't know that from the corporate news monopolies. He is a moderate! And he is not alone. There are many leaders of this movement, including the elected presidents of Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina. The Bolivarians are creating a unique combination of socialism, capitalism, constitutional government, the rule of law (INCLUDING the protection of private property!), and inclusive, participatory democracy. And it behooves us to get informed about why it is so popular, and what it is accomplishing, before we start calling its leaders "asshats" and "dictators" in sync with George Bush!

And, who knows, we might learn something about restoring democracy here!

[bitchkitty]

96. Great post - inspiring!

I've wanted to move to Venezuela for a while now - I don't think I'll live long enough to see that kind of democracy here - I'm not sure that it will ever happen here. :(

[darfman]

115. Hmm. I like your response but it's a little off..

Not that anyone will read this this but I liked your response. While articulate, according to my research your statements may need adjusting. Regarding RCTV, a station basically equivalent to Fox, according to my information, Chavez instituted the licensing requirement where none existed before. That is to say, RCTV was predictably going to be running in the future, but Chavez, in an effort to "get them" instituted this licensing renewal legislation whereby they had to submit an application under this "new" process and were predictably denied. If my information is accurate, then your assessment is somewhat wrong in that Chavez did go after them. I personally believe he was justified for the reasons that you expanded upon. I also wonder if it wouldn't be better to subject Fox to the same end.

Regarding the Venezuelan Congress handing power over to Chavez, you make it sound as if a dictator is not a dictator so long as he is elected democratically. Obviously, Nazi-Germany is a case in which exactly that took place. A large portion of Venezuelans did not participate in the last election, an obvious mistake. I think what is most disturbing about your comments is that you do not look critically at where Chavez is moving toward. His model is Castro, albeit some difference. He has changed the Constitution so that he can stay in power well beyond the constitutionally prescribed term limits, this should be sufficient alone to raise a red flag. Moreover, Chavez has not just appropriated portions of the oil industry, he is looking at the energy industry, the telecommunications industry and the steel industry. He threatened the national bank with nationalization, he apparently now is threatening private schools with the same, he has threatened other television stations and national newspapers with nationalization, he also threatened to kick out foreigners who disagree with him...I mean come on. At first I thought he was probably a positive figure, particularly given the context of this brutal administration, however, I am seeing a lot of things that give me cause for concern, and I don't think your comment was exactly balanced in this regard.

[Judi Lynn]

116. As DU'ers are very well aware, the RCTV license was given for 20 years,

which expired May 27, 2007. Nothing could be clearer.

You're barking up the wrong tree to throw a load of right-wing charges out, knowing most people simply don't have the time to address each twisted claim.

Take them all one at a time, and be prepared to discuss each one completely with DU'ers when they have time to discuss with you.

Take the time to start doing your homework, just like the rest of us. By the way, Venezuelan oil was nationalized long ago, and the pResident who attempted to highjack it was impeached for grotesque corruption, although he remains to serve as a popular voice with the Venezuelan opposition, and friend of the American right-wing.

Start reading actual information on each topic, and stay away from the self-serving corporate media which has ALWAYS bent every effort to please the _Bush administration, or at least stop spewing their dishonest claims here.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

32. There's so much we have heard and read over the years about what has been happening

as certain U.S. administrations have taken over molding public perception of other governments. Sickening.

I've posted an article here before discussing the LARGE group of papers, magazines which are feeding CIA material into public "awareness," and will look around when time permits to see if I can find it.

You undoubtedly recall that Reagan's Office of Public Diplomacy created almost ALL the news we all read concerning Contra, from A to Z, and the head, Cuban "exile" Otto Reich was found out by Congress, which said he had entered the illegal area. Of COURSE he was one of the first guys _{Bush, Jr.} tried to hire for the State Department, head of Latin American Affairs as soon as he stole the Presidency, and, when challenged on it, sneaked him in through a recess appointment.

Here's something which should throw a little light on the subject. I will continue to look around for the article which names more of the CIA-feeding news outlets:

The Times reported that over the last twenty years, the CIA owned or subsidized more than fifty newspapers, news services, radio stations, periodicals and other communications facilities, most of them overseas. These were used for propaganda efforts, or even as cover for operations. Another dozen foreign news organizations were infiltrated by paid CIA agents. At least 22 American news organizations had employed American journalists who were also working for the CIA, and nearly a dozen American publishing houses printed some of the more than 1,000 books that had been produced or subsidized by the CIA. When asked in a 1976 interview whether the CIA had ever told its media agents what to write, William Colby replied, "Oh, sure, all the time."

Since domestic propaganda was a violation of the their charter, the CIA defined the predictable effects of their foreign publications as "blowback" or "domestic fallout," which they considered to be "inevitable and consequently permissible." But former CIA employees told the Times that apart from this unintended blowback, "some CIA propaganda efforts, especially during the Vietnam War, had been carried out with a view toward their eventual impact in the United States." The Times series concluded that at its peak, the CIA's network "embraced more than 800 news and public information organizations and individuals."<15>

By the time the Times series appeared, Congress was looking for a way out of the issue. Obligingly, Stansfield Turner promised that the CIA would avoid journalists "accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station." There were at least three problems with this that most press coverage overlooked: many stringers and freelancers are not accredited; it didn't cover any foreign-owned media; and as Gary Hart complained at the time, the new policy included a provision that allowed the CIA to unilaterally make exceptions whenever it wished.<16>

Within several years of this alleged policy, the new Reagan administration ignored it in favor of a shooting war in Central America, one component of which was an illegal CIA-administered propaganda war at home. Edgar Chamorro, a contra sympathizer in Miami with a background in public relations, was recruited by the CIA in late 1982. After two years of following the CIA's instructions regarding the manipulation of U.S. journalists and even members of Congress, Chamorro went public with his story.<17> By now Congress was clearly out-maneuvered, even though it alone held the purse strings that controlled funding for the war.
(snip/...)

http://www.namebase.org/news17.html

[Judi Lynn]

33. I have the material, found in a different source, but well worth examining:

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST CIA/MEDIA VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT-RIGHT TO A FREE PRESS

To: US CONGRESS
CIA SECRET PROJECT OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD

~snip~
Journalism is a perfect cover for CIA agents. People talk freely to journalists, and few think suspiciously of a journalist aggressively searching for information. Journalists also have power, influence and clout. Not surprisingly, the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale, a mission it dubbed Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The agency wanted these journalists not only to relay any sensitive information they discovered, but also to write anti-communist, pro-capitalist propaganda when needed.

The instigators of MOCKINGBIRD were Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham was the husband of Katherine Graham, today’s publisher of the Washington Post. In fact, it was the Post’s ties to the CIA that allowed it to grow so quickly after the war, both in readership and influence. (8)

MOCKINGBIRD was extraordinarily successful. In no time, the agency had recruited at least 25 media organizations to disseminate CIA propaganda. At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA’s testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975. (The committee felt the true number was considerably higher.) The names of those recruited reads like a Who's Who of journalism:

Philip and Katharine Graham (Publishers, Washington Post)
William Paley (President, CBS)
Henry Luce (Publisher, Time and Life magazine)
Arthur Hays Sulzberger (Publisher, N.Y. Times)
Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star)
Hal Hendrix (Pulitzer Prize winner, Miami News)
Barry Bingham Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal)
James Copley (Copley News Services)
Joseph Harrison (Editor, Christian Science Monitor)
C.D. Jackson (Fortune)
Walter Pincus (Reporter, Washington Post)
ABC
NBC
*Associated Press
United Press International
Reuters
Hearst Newspapers
Scripps-Howard
Newsweek magazine
Mutual Broadcasting System
Miami Herald
Old Saturday Evening Post
New York Herald-Tribune

Perhaps no newspaper is more important to the CIA than the Washington Post, one of the nation’s most right-wing dailies. Its location in the nation’s capitol enables the paper to maintain valuable personal contacts with leading intelligence, political and business figures. Unlike other newspapers, the Post operates its own bureaus around the world, rather than relying on AP wire services. Owner Philip Graham was a military intelligence officer in World War II, and later became close friends with CIA figures like Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Desmond FitzGerald and Richard Helms. He inherited the Post by marrying Katherine Graham, whose father owned it.

After Philip’s suicide in 1963, Katharine Graham took over the Post. Seduced by her husband’s world of government and espionage, she expanded her newspaper’s relationship with the CIA. In a 1988 speech before CIA officials at Langley, Virginia, she stated:

We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things that the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.

This quote has since become a classic among CIA critics for its belittlement of democracy and its admission that there is a political agenda behind the Post’s headlines.

Ben Bradlee was the Post’s managing editor during most of the Cold War. He worked in the U.S. Paris embassy from 1951 to 1953, where he followed orders by the CIA station chief to place propaganda in the European press. (9) Most Americans incorrectly believe that Bradlee personifies the liberal slant of the Post, given his role in publishing the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate investigations. But neither of these two incidents are what they seem. The Post merely published the Pentagon Papers after The New York Times already had, because it wanted to appear competitive. As for Watergate, we’ll examine the CIA’s reasons for wanting to bring down Nixon in a moment. Someone once asked Bradlee: "Does it irk you when The Washington Post is made out to be a bastion of slanted liberal thinkers instead of champion journalists just because of Watergate?" Bradlee responded: "Damn right it does!" (10)

It would be impossible to elaborate in this short space even the most important examples of the CIA/media alliance. Sig Mickelson was a CIA asset the entire time he was president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961. Later he went on to become president of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, two major outlets of CIA propaganda.
(snip/...)

http://www.petitiononline.com/6725/petition.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On edit:

As you notice, the numbers connect to the Church Committee in a 1975 investigation. God only knows what the figures would be NOW!

*It's good to note that just as you have mentioned time and time again, and certainly in this thread, AP is certain in the propaganda business.

[ronnie624]

77. All of this information sits atop

a mountain of sworn testimony and subpoenaed documents, accompanied by myriad reliable histories of CIA activities throughout the world. All of it is relevant to any examination of the US government's relationships with any Latin American country or the 'news' stories published about them.

Unfortunately, it will probably have no affect on those with an interest in perpetuating the US style capitalist economic model, from disseminating their litanies of inaccuracies and character assassination. They are driven by motives which are much more base than a desire for truth and a society that is equitable for all, namely, greed and a fear of change.

But as always, I am grateful for your efforts.

[dipsydoodle]

34. Nicely put.

:toast:

[Vidar]

39. Great post. It's too bad that even here, people are suckers for such

blatant propaganda. State inspections of all schools is a great idea.

[DuaneBidoux]

45. Sorry but when you start talking about educating "The New Citizen" there's a problem.

The Bolsheviks had 80% support when they took over Russia.

[bbinacan]

56. A simple question that

maybe even you can follow. If this crap were happening here, what would you think then?

[NuttyFluffers]

69. that it'd be exactly like all the private schools my brother and i went to in USA?

all the private schools we went to were regulated, monitored, accredited, etc. those near us that didn't had to refile as another class of school. you cannot advertise yourself falsely to unsuspecting consumers, that's what it's about.

basically Venezuela is only catching up to American standards for school licensing. it's educational progress. do you have a problem with a country aspiring to American standards of living?

[bbinacan]

86. I have no problem with a

country aspiring to American standards of living. What I do have a problem with is a dictator in the making who controls media programming and who deports any visitor critical of him. I therefore, do not trust his private school agenda.

[NuttyFluffers]

97. who controls media programming? deports any critical visitors? hmm, no....

i've read quite a bit about Chavez and he is grossly misrepresented in our media, and for a particular reason. being familiar with what you are talking about i am aware what you are saying isn't what is happening. please, there is quite a lot available to learn a more complete understanding of what is going on there.

your lack of trust is contructed by structured media messages, such as this story. notice how you already got a gut reaction of mistrust when all he is doing is what we already do in this country. and the media issue has already been discussed to death here on DU and it is quite plain that what he was doing was mind-blowingly more lenient than anything that would happen in america. don't let yourself be used by viscerally moving headlines and catchphrases.

:hi:

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

71. A great article on AP in Venezuela:

AP's One Sided Venezuela Coverage
On Desk Reporters Who "Phone In The Spin"
by Dan Feder
December 20, 2002

~snip~
Ikeda goes on to quote the US Ambassador to the OAS, Roger Noriega, who says "this resolution supports the secretary general's efforts, unequivocally and energetically," giving the impression that Noriega was quite pleased with the resolution. Here may lie the key to Ikeda's bizarre slanting of this important story. Noriega recently served on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee. While in that post, he became notorious for his skill at manipulating reporters. Once, he was overheard bragging that New York Times' Larry Rohter never made a move without consulting him. It seems that, rather than seek out independent analysis of the resolution, or do his own (did he even read it? one has to wonder), Ikeda has let a veteran Washington spin-doctor tell the story for him.

~snip~
The problem with the Associated Press

Some of AP's other reporters have been producing simply awful journalism since long before Ikeda joined this round of the Venezuelan tug-of-war. AP stories are picked up by thousands of newspapers large and small across the country every day, and are often read by newscasters on the radio and television. So the tone they set and messages they break to the public are no small matter; they lie at the heart of the media-created reality through which most of us through which most United States citizens and many English-speaking people in other countries experience the larger world.

Associated Press is technically a "non-profit" corporation owned by a cooperative of for-profit United States newspapers and media companies, and governed by the AP Managing Editors Association. No radio news show or daily newspaper editor has the resources to send a reporter to every part of the world she or he wants. So editors use the AP to cut costs; why pay twenty-five different journalists to write on an issue when you can pool your resources and just pay one? According to their website,

the AP is the backbone of the world's information system. In the United States alone, AP serves 5,000 radio and television stations and 1,700 newspapers. Add to that the 8,500 newspaper, radio and television subscribers in 121 countries overseas, and you'll have some idea of AP's reach.

This role obviously gives the AP an unbelievable amount of power over the discussion of global events, especially in the English-speaking world. Yet AP correspondents write under much lower standards and with much less supervision than their counterparts at specific media organizations. In other words, they are largely unaccountable to their editors. At the same time, at a corporate level, the AP is unaccountable to its millions of readers. Unlike many newspapers, there is no AP ombudsman who "speaks for the readers." There is no letters page for the AP, and individual newspapers rarely print letters responding to wire stories.
(snip)

After 16 days of repeating its tired claims, the reader of AP Venezuela coverage has no better understanding of the conflict than she or he had prior to December. The screaming lack of context for any discussion of violence in Venezuela, as always, serves the Big Lie of a principled, noble strike and an irrational, "authoritarian" government. The AP has produced a flood of stories since the latest opposition push broke out, all of which run the spectrum from forgettable to outright coup propaganda. The reporters at the AP need to take a step back and look at the side missing from their stories, to serve their enormous audience with something much more closely resembling the truth. If genuine reporting from their stories is being filtered out by editors in favor of PR sound bytes - unlikely but not impossible - they need to find a way to force the truth into the end product.

More importantly, the AP Managing Editors Association must, to regain lost credibility, reform the way foreign news is "reported" - with a particular eye on Latin America - with a series of checks and balances that provide greater accountability, a mechanism to receive and act on complaints by readers and subjects alike, and an insistence that AP correspondents get up from their desks and interview real people to counter the triumph of the spin-doctors over AP's foreign bureaus.
(snip)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2775

[Snarkturian Clone]

82. Leave Chavez Alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[EFerrari]

17. And we can tell because the Venezuelan people are out in the streets

protesting this . . oops!

[eridani]

29. For proposing to run their schools the way US states now run theirs? n/t

[SayWhatYo]

47. Hmm... Don't we do the same thing here?

[AllyCat]

78. Dictator? Despot? What is your definition of these things?

Private schools are regulated in THIS country too! As well they should be.

Now OUR current leader? That's what I'd call a dictator. He's practically admitted it himself. Chavez is not perfect, but he isn't out making war with other countries to make money for his friends. He's not out imprisoning his people for no reason, no cause, and no hope of representation or a trial. He refuses to put his country's oil money into New York banks. We should be so lucky.

[TankLV]

122. Define "dicator" please - we're all waiting breathless for your illumination...

not...

[Hulk]

5. There you have it.....a damn good reason to invade Venezuela...bring democracy to the schools!!

I don't see where Chavez has any business dictating what materials are being used in public or private schools, but then that's the "democracy" in me. Looking back at our history books, there was so much "skim" over issues that needed to be taught, and so much bullshit and hype over areas to make us look "saintly" to the world. I'm not sure what to say about this man, but it couldn't be much worse than what we have.

[bemildred]

6. Well, it depends on what he does with it.

It is essential in a democracy for citizens to be educated for their political role, just like a king has to be taught how to be a king. If that is what he does, it's great. If he resorts to the usual brainwashing and bullshit, then it's not good.

[EFerrari]

21. That's the thing. These hit pieces keep sounding as if

Chavez is issuing dicta from a palace.

Meanwhile, in reality, his government is working hard to build a social infrastructure, all over the country. Not only at the state level but also at the community level with community councils that assess needs and apply for federal funds to meet them.

But, mentioning that would mess up the dictator meme, I guess.

[Dave From Canada]

118. He IS issuing dicta from a palace. He's ruling by decree. What else do you want from him? To put

on a crown too? His "government" is working hard to keep him in power for as long as he wants.

But acknowledging that would mess up the Chavez as savior meme, I guess.

Chavez = Bush.
They both govern by fear. But at least Bush will be gone soon.

[Judi Lynn]

119. ALL Venezuelan Presidents live in Miraflores. It takes someone truly backward

to attempt to give "less" informed people (if possible) the impression he has somehow acquired his own personal palace. Don't even try that here with Democrats.

Attempting to imply Hugo Chavez is unique in having used the special temporary limited powers given him by his National Assembly is either an indication you don't know much about it, or that you are deliberately attempting to mislead people who know less than you.

[Dave From Canada]

128. LOL, we'll see how long he has these "temporary powers", probably as long as he's in office, which

will be decades.

Chavez = Bush.

[eridani]

30. Our public school boards have to meet state requirements

Is that also "dictatorship"?

[rpannier]

7. While I agree that the private sector cannot do whatever it wants

The phrase "the new citizen," concerns me.
It sounds disturbingly similar to the same rhetoric Pol Pot and Mao said.

[paulk]

23. that and his brother is the education minister

hmmm....

[1932]

37. Pol Pot murdered anyone with an education and anyone who wore glasses.

How is that similar to anything that is happening in Venezuela?

[LanternWaste]

52. Almost like.... "new frontier"?

Almost like.... "new frontier". Very Kennedy-esque to me.

[rpannier]

58. Tomato - Tomahto...Time will tell what that statement holds.

If anything...

[dipsydoodle]

8. May I suggest that any from the USA

who critizes this issue would better spend their time and effort sorting out their own internal problems.

Watching the film The war Against Democracy might give a better indication of what education in Venezuela is all about : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148&q=the+war+on+democracy&total=2378&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

For a substantial number of comments on this subject in general go here which as posted 6 hours ago :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3527305

[stillcool]

14. I can not begin to understand...

the problem so many have with the 'democracy' in other countries. I guess it helps explain the condition of our own. I've not done any reading about 'schools' in Venezuela, but I have read statistics regarding where the U.S. rates scholastically. In passing today, I also picked up a few other articles perhaps more pertinent to our condition, but I doubt anyone will bother to read them.
Washington's 'three fronts of attack' on Venezuela
by Eva Golinger
Green Left Weekly, www.zmag.org/, 11/27/06
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Venezuela_page/Wash_Attack_Venezuela.html

Picture Credit:
Observatorio de la Deuda en la Globalizacion

Much to read here:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/venezuela/index.htm


Venezuela: US fears spread of Chavez example
by Federico Fuentes
http://globalresearch.ca/, June 15, 2007
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Venezuela_page/US_Fears_Chavez_Example.html

Setting the Stage for Turmoil in Caracas
Washington's New Imperial Strategy In Venezuela
by Chris Carlson, Venezuelanalysis.com
www.zmag.org, May 15, 2007
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Venezuela_page/SettingStageTurmoilCaracas.html

[Pavulon]

12. Well..the water continues to warm for the froggies..(nt)

[EFerrari]

22. Are you comparing the people of Venezuela to frogs?

Maybe they need a good ol' US invasion to get them back on track. So we can put in one of our brutal dictators that will suck up to BushCo? I bet you'd like that so much better. lol

[Socal31]

15. The people defending him

are starting to grasp at straws here....

[muryan]

16. i stopped posting here for quite some time

i was one of the few that has been against him from the start. But i was labeled a freeper and a facist for opposing such a "visionary".

visionary my ass, its been a power grab from the start

[EFerrari]

19. Do yourself a favor and learn how to read these hit pieces.

The AP is framing government regulation as a power grab.

What a power monger!

Thank god OUR SCHOOLS aren't regulated like that! :sarcasm:

[Socal31]

25. Since when did American Progressiveism

mean backing Communism? My friends call me a "leftie", because I favor Universal Healthcare, Equal Rights, and a clean environment. Now, it seems like unless you support true dictators like Chavez, you are somehow a freeper. My how things change.

[Imperialism Inc.]

43. The reason you got called that is probably because you are so

confused. See when you start calling elected (multiple times) leaders dictators it becomes obvious there is something wrong upstairs for you. When people see someone who is confused and uttering hyperbolic words and statements like 'dictator' they immediately think freeper.

[EFerrari]

44. Please make the case that Chavez is a dictator

instead of simply repeating the BushCo meme. Maybe there's something here I'm missing.

[Clanfear]

61. Our schools aren't regulated like that.

What is Chavez so afraid of? He speaks of wanting diversity, but then takes measures to ensure that the only thing taught is his version of reality. I'm surprised he isn't more focused on the rampant inflation his country is seeing(worst in the Western hemisphere) or the staple food shortages. His price controls in an effort to stave off the ridiculous inflation have forced the poor farmers to sell their goods to neighboring countries to make money, thus leaving his own country without milk, cheese, beans, wheat, corn, etc.. While he denounces the US on one hand he is buying $100 million in wheat from the US since June because his policies are starving his country. In another interesting irony, because Venezuela's crude prodcution is so heavily based in "heavy" crude the US is the only nation that can refine it to make it useful. The Chinese are trying to gain the technology, but distance factor will likely make it unprofitable. So, while denouncing capitalism Hugo is totally dependent upon it to finance his socialist dreams, whether it be the US or China. That is ironic.

[EFerrari]

62. Enjoy your stay!

[Clanfear]

65. Enjoy my stay?

Why would you make a comment like that? Are you suggesting that because you disagree with my take on Chavez you would like to have me eliminated?

[Cameron27]

135. Welcome to DU!

I don't know if anyone's said that yet, but you shouldn't be judged a troll just because you disagree with someone about Chavez. :hi:

[Judi Lynn]

63. You appear disoriented concerning Venezuela's oil refining capability.

DU'ers have discussed it here at various times going back a couple of years....

UPDATED: 13:28, September 30, 2005
Brazilia, Venezuela sign oil refinery agreement



Brasilia and Venezuela signed Thursday in Brasilia an agreement on jointly building an oil refinery with a total investment of 2.5 billion US dollars.

Chief executives of Venezuela's state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela and Brazil's government oil company Petrobras signed the agreement with the presence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his Brasilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Financing of the complex will be equally split between the two companies and the refinery will be ready to operate in 44 months.

The refinery, to be built in the northeastern Brasilian state of Pernambuco, is to process up to 200,000 barrels of heavy oil daily.
(snip/...)

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200509/30/eng20050930_211827.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Venezuela offers Ecuador oil-refining help; Brazil, Bolivia consider new energy investments
The Associated Press
Published: December 9, 2006


COCHABAMBA, Bolivia: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez offered to share his country's excess oil refining capacity with Ecuador on Saturday, extending his petrodollars campaign to help a new leftist government slash high energy costs.
(snip/...)

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/10/america/LA_GEN_Bolivia_Summit_Energy.php

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd like to add, after seeing your comment to some other poster somewhere on this thread, "b-b-b-but Judi said....." followed by a condemnation of the information I posted, that no doubt most DU'ers are trying to juggle their ordinary private lives with moments in which they run off to check DU, etc.

Those of us who aren't doing this for a living don't have a luxury of time usually.

I look until I find something I believe covers the subject, I post a link, and I'm outta here. I can't be hanging around to wait to see if you approve it.

If you can't grasp what the association is, you could use some help. Everything I posted pointed out that there are a lot of people cranking out crap which is no where nearly truthful, for various reasons, starting right here in our own country, with scum working for the right-wing Presidents, like Cuban "exile" Otto Reich, as he did, when he overstepped the legal limits producing propaganda, and was called for it by Congress.

You need to spend less time "gifting" us with your uninformed opinions, and more time learning something about the subject matter.

[Clanfear]

66. With all due respect.

I am very well versed on the subject and am aware of the Brazilian and Ecuadorian refining offers from Venezuala. That is not what I spoke of though. Those deal with the "light" crude refining processes which are much less technologicly advanced. The problem is that Venezuela is producing more and more "heavy" crude which at the current time only the US has the capibility to refine.


Judi, you posted a 7 year old article that you claimed "discredited" an AP reporter when it did no such thing. There was nothing that you posted that showed his reporting had been discredited, only a conflict of interest. Should he have been reporting in Bolivia? No. But that fact does not automatically discount everything that comes from the AP in regards to Venezuela or South America.

I grasp your decided association to that region just fine. You like to report the news that furthers your point of view and discount everything else that is counter. Instead of being so anxious to discount those other opinions, or as you would call them, "uninformed opinions", you may want to give that same level of scrutiny to the sources you like to cite. I have friends in Venezuela too, and it's not all the rosy picture you like to paint. I have been reading your posts here for the better part of 2 years.

[AllyCat]

98. got a link for that?

[NotGivingUp]

126. You revealed your naivete in your opening statement. n/t

[Clanfear]

129. Care to discuss it? n/t

n/t

[NotGivingUp]

134. Give me a reason/..i'm waiting.

[eridani]

31. But the failed coup was real "democracy" I suppose?

Abolish the constitution and eliminate the judiciary? I'll bet you were cheering for it.

[Peace Patriot]

35. "I was...against him from the start." Hm-m. Some open mind you've got there,

for a president and government that have actually been elected by the people, repeatedly, in highly monitored elections, and that enjoy widespread support within the country and in the region.

Chavez, his government and his policies have been vetted by Venezuelans, repeatedly. Everything bad that could be said about Chavez and his policies has been said, and still Venezuelans overwhelmingly support him. Do you know something that THEY don't know, that caused you to be "against him from the start"? And what is that--that makes you want to replace the leader THEY have chosen with someone else? It seems to me that, if the elections are honest and aboveboard--and that is certainly the case with Venezuelan elections--there is no good reason to oppose the choice of the people "from the start," unless you know something that most other people don't know. The presumption should be that the people of the country know what they are doing, and have good reasons for their choices. And if you have no good reason for being against this leader "from the start"--it's just some unreasonable prejudice of yours--then why should anybody heed anything you have to say about him later? You've been against "from the start." You will likely continue to be against him, no matter what he does.

"...its been a power grab from the start." First of all, what politician does not seek power? You can't do ANYTHING, for good or ill, without power. And there are many kinds of power, some good, some bad. A 70% approval rating is power--the power of the people supporting your policy. Election by 63% of the people is power--again, the power of the people. Boffo oil revenues flowing into the government is power. Could be used for good, could be used for ill. How has Chavez used that power? To enrich himself and friends? There is no evidence of it. The evidence is that the oil revenues are being used to build schools and medical clinics, to subsidize education, for land reform, for small business loans and grants, and for vast improvements in the quality of life for Venezuelans, and for long term economic purposes, such as kicking the World Bank loan sharks out of the region, and creating regional, cooperative development projects, with Argentina, Brazil and other countries.

The rightwing media and the robber barons also accused FDR of being a "dictator" and of "grabbing power." Yup, FDR was very powerful, and he most certainly "grabbed" power with both hands. But what was the EFFECT of the power he "grabbed"? The effect was to empower OTHERS--not just himself. Was that bad? Only Bushites and Reaganites think so. The vast majority of people were greatly benefited--politically, economically and socially--by FDR's "grab" of all the power he could get, to act on their behalf, against powerful corporate and financial interests that had grievously harmed them.

"Visionary" and "power grab" are not necessarily antithetical. And, again, you have to look at EFFECTS (as well as process). Hitler was both visionary and a power grabber. But he was most certainly serving his own maniacal ego, both with his "vision" and with his ever-increasing--and increasingly violent--power.

What are the EFFECTS of Chavez's power in Venezuela and the region? What is the process by which Chavez has achieved power? And is it violent power--or oppressive power--in any way?

Can you name ANY ill effects of Chavez's power? What power has he "grabbed" that has violated the Constitution or the rule of law? Has his personal power not ENHANCED the power of the Venezuelan people? They now get benefits from the government that they never had before. They now participate in government and politics in ways that most people could never even dream of before. You really need to produce facts and evidence of the MISUSE of power, if you are going to make the case that "its" been "a power grab from the start." A power grab by whom? The people of Venezuela? But...don't they have a right to power and to elect a leader who has power, to do their will and act in their interest?

Power needs to be watched, for sure. I totally agree with that. Is Chavez being watched? You bet he is. He is subjected to pervasive, and often very hostile, scrutiny. And nothing has come of it, as to detecting corruption or oppression by his government. And power needs to be balanced, and spread around. Venezuela has a national legislature, which the Venezuelan people have chosen to fill with Chavistas, also in honest and aboveboard elections. It has many small political parties, though, and there is much discussion within it, on all sides of issues. The rightwing opposition boycotted the last legislative elections--for really stupid reasons--and thus lost seats. (One of the "balance of power" problems in Venezuela is the stupidity of the rightwing opposition--it is no wonder that the Venezuelan people vote against them in such huge numbers! They do not fulfill the function of a "loyal opposition." They are a lot like Bushites.) And Venezuela has several democratic features--that we don't have--including a presidential recall provision, and national referendums on constitutional change and on important issues. (The Chavista proposal that the president not be limited to two terms will be voted on by all Venezuelans, for instance. And the rightwing opposition--funded by us--tried a recall election, and lost.) I know less about the court system--which Chavez has been accused of trying to interfere with (so did FDR, don't you know?), but the REAL interference with the court system came from the rightwing opposition, when they SUSPENDED all the courts--along with suspending the Constitution--during their 2002 attempted violent military coup. Is Chavez more of a threat to judicial system than that?

"Power grab." Hm-m. It seems to me that Venezuela has suffered a power vacuum--into which Chavez and his government have stepped. We are seeing a similar phenomenon here. Bush & Co. have very little legitimate power. 70% of the American people despise them. They have little or no people power. All they have is bludgeon power--the power to FORCE their will on us, on the Iraqis, on others. And that was the situation in Venezuela when Chavez was first elected, evidenced by some events that happened just before that, and the really terrible social and economic conditions in the country, and by the ways that the rightwing has tried to remove this legitimately elected leader. They have the brittle power of fascists--guns, tanks, CIA money, dirty tricks. They don't have legitimacy, which can only come from the people. Chavez and his government has filled that legitimacy void. And I think they've done pretty well, in respecting constitutional limits, in this rather out-of-balance situation, in which no other leader can even come close to Chavez's popularity. In fact, the Chavistas--and Venezuelans in general--are passionately devoted to their Constitution.

One other criteria by which to judge Chavez's power--is it "power grab"? is it legitimate?--is the relations that Chavez has with other leaders in the region, and with institutions like the OAS. Chavez has REALLY GOOD relations with the other leftist leaders in the region, and is good friends with Evo Morales (president of Bolivia), Rafael Correa (president of Ecuador), and Nestor Kirchner (president of Argentina). Would THEY be friendly with Chavez if he were a "dictator" or had ill intentions? On the contrary, they defend him (against the Condi Rice's of this world), and work closely with him. So does Lula da Silva (president of Brazil). And the OAS just voted for Venezuelan membership on the OAS Human Rights Commission. What do these South Americans see that Muryan--who's "been against Chavez from the start"--didn't want to see "from the start" and doesn't want to see now? That Chavez's power is legitimate, and being used to good ends, and that he is, indeed, "visionary" in a good way--and an inspiration to all of them, as a matter of fact.

Be ever vigilant, I'd say, over all political and government power. But, for heaven's sake, let's also give credit where credit is due, as to democratic achievements, or at least keep an open mind, most especially about countries and leaders that the Bush Junta has an avid interest in demonizing. Venezuela has a better democracy than our own, in many respects. They are also very poor--by design of the rich--and have been battered into submission by our government and corporate rulers for decades. If we had a decent government ourselves, the U.S. would be friends with Venezuela, and aiding them in every way we could toward social justice and self-determination. But we DON'T have a decent government. And it's a stretch to call what we have a democracy. The Venezuelans could teach us some things, if we bother to find out what's really going on there, and ignore our delusional news media. THEY have transparent elections. We don't. Start with that. And maybe we, too, would have a leftist (majorityist) congress and president, if our system was counting all the votes. Then we could start worrying about things getting too out-of-balance toward the left. I'd prefer that worry to the one we have now.

[nick303]

68. Evidence

Could be used for good, could be used for ill. How has Chavez used that power? To enrich himself and friends? There is no evidence of it.

http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9621513

Also google "Boliburguesía"

[EFerrari]

18. What straws should I be grasping at?

lol!

And, btw, Chavez doesn't need me or anyone to defend him. He's doing just fine for himself and for Venezuela.

[Maribelle]

36. The plight of Venezuelans before Chavez was elected ...

reveals a sad sordid tale of corruption of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. The rich that seemed happy to know that eighty percent of their fellow Venezuelans lived in poverty in the richest county in South America. Chavez has done a remarkable job of turning this around. But a lot of work remains.

People defending him are not grasping at straws here. People defending him are reaching out to those living in abject poverty, to those that were forced to live in the leftovers, the unwanted, worthless material and objects discarded by the ruling class of debauchery, which gave new meaning to unrestrained self-indulgent immoral behavior, and the word filth.

People defending him have hope for the future of Venezuela.

[plasticsundance]

40. JudiLynn and PeacePatriot

Give very long and informative pieces. It's the likes of posters like you that try to dispel and discredit the information without divulging anything but the same repetitive propaganda lines.

Seriously. Do you have anything to add that is skillfully and informatively presented? Otherwise, your post really is only something bordering on a schoolyard insult.

[bitchkitty]

72. One thing I've noticed about the people defending him -

their posts are generally articulate, reasoned and sourced, while most of the people attacking Chavez are using cute little one-liners and/or regurgitating MSM vomit. Why is that?

[redqueen]

99. Oh, I'm sure that's just a coincidence...

:sarcasm:

[UTUSN]

20. Why, of COURSE, he will/SHOULD - Anybody on DU will AGREE!!11 n/t

[DumpDavisHogg]

24. Good for Chavez

Too bad he's not taking over the private schools in the United States (like the idiot-run high school I had to attend).

[Peace Patriot]

26. First of all, beware of the source. The Associated Press is a corporate disinformation

outlet, serving the interests of global corporate predators and war profiteers, and they have been especially bad on the South American left. I don't trust them at all. I don't trust their framing, their choice of topics, their "experts" and their often unnamed sources. I don't trust their translation of quotes and their often suspicious attribution of statements to people without quotation marks.

This hit piece uses one of their classics: "The president's opponents accuse him of..."

The OP snips off the last paragraph of this very short article. Here it is:

---

"The president's opponents accuse him of aiming to indoctrinate young Venezuelans with socialist ideology. But the education minister said the aim is to develop 'critical thinking,' not to impose a single way of thought."

---

For a long while, they were using a very similar phrase to "the president's opponents"--"his critics"--with the accusation that Chavez is "increasingly authoritarian" or "increasingly dictatorial." They never named anyone. Maddening. So I want hunting for who might have said this, and I tracked it to a very rightwing Catholic Venezuelan cardinal who had spent his entire career in the Vatican finance office and was one of the few people the Vatican ever fired (during fascist banking scandals of the 1980s). This old "Opus Dei" cardinal regularly spews vitriol against the Chavez government from the pulpit. Even the Vatican considers him something of an embarrassment. HE is the only source I could find for the accusation that Chavez is "increasingly authoritarian," in a search for the source about two years ago. Is AP using the Catholic Church as its source? Or is the Bush-purged CIA funneling "talking points" through fascist churchmen to AP?

So who are "the president's opponents" who "accuse him" of "aiming to indoctrinate young Venezuelans"? I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same source. Who, of all the institutions on earth, is MOST guilty of "indoctrinating" the young? Like the Bush Junta, the Catholic Church often accuses others of the evils that they themselves are committing.

Or was it one of the rightwing coup plotters, who wanted to change Venezuela the old fashioned way, with a violent military coup? One of THOSE "opponents"? Or perhaps one of the Bushite-funded (with our tax dollars) phony "opposition" groups run by the USAID/NED, say the one who promulgated the false poll (Chavez didn't really win the last election in December 2006) that was to be the trigger for Florida '00-type, rightwing "riots" and another coup attempt, the day after the election. Maybe that's AP's source here--Condi "Exxon" Rice or John "death squad" Negroponte, using local lapdogs. Who are these "president's opponents"? It is highly suspicious-making that AP obscures them from our view.

Note: Exxon is really, really pissed off at Chavez for not paying them what THEY think they deserve for their local oil facilities, and has roped in the World Bank for an "arbitration" (i.e., extorting more billions from Venezuela's poor into the pockets of our most murderous and anti-democratic Corporate Rulers).

But back to AP: Notice in the first three paragraphs that there is only one quote ("Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants.") The rest--also attributed to Chavez--is free-form "translation." No quotes. What did he really say? Your guess is as good as mine. If it's so important, worthy of a news article, why not quote him directly?

As for the substance of the article, as it slithers through this stinky oil slick of arbitrary transliteration, to its appointed feeding grounds (the "indoctrination of young Venezuelans," according to "the president's opponents"), we can only guess at what the Chavez government is really proposing, and we really cannot base any conclusions about it on the information given here.

But even if its accusations are true, what's so bad about indoctrinating young Venezuelans in socialism? WE indoctrinate young Americans in predatory capitalism, even unto the way that our "public school" textbooks are procured, from corporate monopolies who suck like vampires on the necks of U.S. taxpayers and school boards, in a dictatorial process that denies public school teachers any leeway in the choice of texts. WE teach lessons in corporate welfare. Why not teach them something better, such as "critical thinking" (as the education minister avers)? Or even--God forbid--the obligations of society towards the poor, the social benefits of cooperation and sharing, the requirements of conscience and ethics in business and trade, and the evils of greed, of massive accumulations of wealth and untoward power over others, and of corporate domination?

The proponents of these state actions are out there--saying what they're saying (whatever that was). The "opponents" lurk behind the scenes, putting the worse face on these Venezuelan proposals (whatever they are), under cover of AP. I would say: Give the Chavistas the benefit of the doubt until you can speak more knowledgeably about the actual proposals. The Chavez government has the overwhelming support of the Venezuelan people. They won the last election with 63% of the vote, in elections that were heavily monitored by the OAS, the Carter Center and EU election monitoring groups, and universally determined to be fair and aboveboard. Chavez himself has something like a 70% approval rating right now. (The opposition candidate--to his credit--publicly disavowed that phony USAID/NED poll, by the way, and the heinous plot that it was to be the trigger for.) Chavez and his government are very genuine representatives of the great majority of Venezuelans, and we therefore are obliged to presume that imposing a national curriculum on private schools is a popular idea and that Venezuelans, as a whole, have good reasons for wanting to do it. And it is impossible to judge their ideas from this skimpy and biased information from AP, a notoriously unreliable corporate news monopoly.

The Chavez government has so far been hugely beneficial to the Venezuelan people and to the region, and it has scrupulously followed constitutional procedure and the rule of law. There is no evidence at all that the Chavez government is oppressive or dictatorial. They are going out of their way to maximize public participation in politics and government and in important decisions. Venezuela has the liveliest political culture in the western hemisphere. If the Venezuelan people make mistakes in policy, it cannot be said of them that the mistakes were made undemocratically. Democracies do make mistakes. (We've made some whoppers here.) But on the whole democracies tend toward the general good, and the more democracy there is, in a society, the better chance there is that the best ideas--those that serve the common good--will prevail.

If this is a bad policy, it will be tried out and then mitigated or dropped. I have no doubt at all that Venezuela has sufficient democratic strength, flexibility and internal criticism to end up with a beneficial policy on education. I wish I could say that about my own country. We are still stuck with this monster, "No Child Left Behind"--one of the worst educational policies ever conceived. And we can't seem to get rid of that, or the war, even with a Democratic Congress. Who has the better democracy--the one that handcounts 0% to 1% of the votes in a "trade secret," proprietary, corporate-run electronic voting system, or the one that handcounts FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of the votes, as a check on machine fraud, in an open source code system? And, of these two democracies, which one is likely to develop a good educational policy? I'll place my bet on Venezuela.

I'll also place a bet that AP never does a news article on the already vastly improved Venezuelan educational system, which is entirely due to the Chavez government's strong commitment to education for all (--hundreds of new schools built and staffed in poor areas never before served by government; 50% literacy to 100% literacy in five years, due to an intense effort at adult education; free university educations for all qualified students; active programs to keep teenagers in school; government subsidies to the poor, for education and training; government subsidies to the Venezuelan children's classical music school, an immensely successful program that has produced world class orchestras and conductors, by training STREET CHILDREN in classical musical instruments). (What do we do with our street children? Send them to jail! What does Venezuela do? Send them to classical music school! Jeez. Where's the AP article on THAT?)

[1932]

38. Excellent analysis.

And quite a contrast to some of the posts above.

[MAGICBULLET]

48. Why don't you consider sending this post to the AP bureau in Caracas?

[Judi Lynn]

49. You're aware of the two NY Times reporters working in Venezuela who had to resign, of course.

I've been trying to find out more about AP in Latin America in the last few minutes. Found an interesting story on AP's man in Bolivia, who attempted to promote dictator Hugo Banzer's water privatization plan, and his resignation:

~ snip ~
AP Should Come Clean About Reporter's Conflicts Following Resignation

10/26/00

The Associated Press' long-time Bolivia correspondent, Peter McFarren, will resign amidst revelations of widespread conflicts of interest, an AP spokesperson has told FAIR.

The resignation comes in the wake of an expose published by the internet-based Narco News Bulletin that pointed to a variety of conflicts involving McFarren. Most recently, McFarren personally lobbied the Bolivian legislature on September 14 on behalf of a water project for the Bolivian Hydro-Resources Corporation. Some of the profits from the $78 million project would go to a foundation created and presided over by McFarren.

Narco News calls McFarren "the gatekeeper of information from Bolivia to the English speaking world," and charges the AP writer "is so deeply in the tank with an interlocking set of governmental and business interests in Bolivia, that his coverage...cannot possibly be considered fair or impartial."

The project McFarren promoted would privatize and divert water from Bolivia to international mining interests in Chile. This water privatization is one of the biggest stories in Bolivia, and is a central issue in widespread protests there that have been escalating since last April.

McFarren, who has been the AP's Bolivian correspondent since 1983,acknowledged his lobbying activities to Narco News, but denied they constitute a conflict of interest, claiming he works for the corporate project "pro bono." McFarren also told Narco News that he'd informed his supervisor, AP Chilean correspondent Eduardo Gallardo, of his lobbying efforts.

When FAIR contacted the AP in New York on October 20 for comment, AP spokesperson Jack Stokes said, "I can only tell you that Peter McFarren will resign from the AP effective November 1." Stokes declined to say if the reported conflicts played a role in McFarren's resignation. When asked if AP intended to investigate the conflicts and inform its readers and subscribing media outlets of the results, Stokes replied, "We usually don't do that."
(snip/...)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1713

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In time, we'll find out more about their people in Venezuela, of course. The way it usually goes is we find out long after they've done too much damage.

[Judi Lynn]

50. More on discredited AP reporter, Peter McFarren:

AP's Man in Bolivia Resigns Over Lobbying Role

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 24, 2000; Page C02

Peter McFarren, the longtime Associated Press correspondent in Bolivia, recently took a step that has nothing to do with his journalistic duties:

Lobbying the government.

McFarren made a presentation to the Bolivian senate, on behalf of the Bolivian Hydro-Resources Corp., for a $78 million water project. The result, the AP confirmed yesterday, is that McFarren has resigned.

McFarren's extracurricular efforts were disclosed by journalist Al Giordano, a former Boston Phoenix writer who recently launched NarcoNews.com. "Imagine if a congressional correspondent for a major Washington daily was found lobbying the U.S. Congress on behalf of a private industry project," he said. "The problem is, U.S. correspondents in Latin America receive very little scrutiny."

AP spokesman Jack Stokes said McFarren voluntarily submitted his resignation last week and that it becomes effective Nov. 1. He declined to answer questions about the apparent conflict of interest, saying: "At this point we're still conferring on that. We're not saying anything publicly."

McFarren, who was born in Bolivia and holds dual U.S. citizenship, doubles as president of the Quispus Foundation, which has built museums in that country. He was in Venezuela yesterday and did not respond to a message left at his hotel.
(snip/...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A690-2000Oct24

[Clanfear]

53. Which 5 years are we talking about?

"50% literacy to 100% literacy in five years"

In 2001 UNESCO(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) claimed Venezuela's literacy rate at roughly 93%.

http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=124&IF_Language=eng&BR_Country=8620

[nick303]

59. They never learn

But back to AP: Notice in the first three paragraphs that there is only one quote ("Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants.") The rest--also attributed to Chavez--is free-form "translation." No quotes. What did he really say? Your guess is as good as mine. If it's so important, worthy of a news article, why not quote him directly?

It's not a transcript of what Chavez said, it's a news article. That is how these usually work. On almost every thread where someone cried mistranslation I have provided a source to the original Spanish which showed that the translations were completely accurate and representative of what he said. Every single time these posts were ignored by Chavez supporters.

You wouldn't have to guess if you had even a basic grounding in the Spanish language--something it seems most Chavez supporters around here do not have. There are literally dozens of different non-AP sources covering this story in the Spanish-speaking world. (Google: Chavez escuelas)

As for the substance of the article, as it slithers through this stinky oil slick of arbitrary transliteration, to its appointed feeding grounds (the "indoctrination of young Venezuelans," according to "the president's opponents"), we can only guess at what the Chavez government is really proposing, and we really cannot base any conclusions about it on the information given here.

Transliteration?

[Clanfear]

60. There are many quotes

And they all basically say the same thing. Either you indoctrinate the children under our guidelines or we are shutting you down or taking you over. People have said this is like No Child Left Behind, which is a terrible analogy. Not that I am a fan of NCLB, but nowhere does it require a set ideology be taught, nor does it apply to private schools. At some point after a few more of these totalitarian measures people will come around to the truth of what is going on down there.

Back to the AP. Judi cited a near decade old instance in which McFarren resigned over conflict of interest, NOT a discreditation of anything he wrote. Although, some would like to make it seem as though because of this conflict of interest somehow all of the AP's reporting is suspect in the region. That's a very broad brush. McFarren was a reporter for the AP in Bolivia, not Venezuela.

[ronnie624]

75. Your arguments,

like those of all the others with an ideological ax to grind on Chavez threads, make very little sense, and always contain blatant inaccuracies.

-"It's not a transcript of what Chavez said, it's a news article. That is how these usually work."

In fact, when a news article claims certain statements were made, especially by the leaders of other countries, quotes are always provided to support such claims. The AP, with its global resources, should have no problem providing plenty of accurate quotes for its readers.

-"On almost every thread where someone cried mistranslation I have provided a source to the original Spanish which showed that the translations were completely accurate and representative of what he said."

Your posts clearly indicate bias on this issue, therefore I do not trust your sources, especially when the information is published in a language I cannot read.

-"You wouldn't have to guess if you had even a basic grounding in the Spanish language--something it seems most Chavez supporters around here do not have."

True, but alas, I cannot read Spanish, therefore I must wait until more information is available from English language sources that I trust. But I have no doubt, that once again, you and the others who attack Chavez with labels, inaccurate statements and information sources that most cannot decipher and analyze, will turn out to be utterly incorrect in your 'assessment'.

[nick303]

79. Response

Your arguments, like those of all the others with an ideological ax to grind on Chavez threads, make very little sense, and always contain blatant inaccuracies.

My arguments sometimes contain inaccuracies. I can admit that. No one is right every time, however unlike many other posters on these threads I will man up and say so. To say that my arguments make little sense is a sign of someone who is not willing to hear an opposing opinion.

In fact, when a news article claims certain statements were made, especially by the leaders of other countries, quotes are always provided to support such claims.

Incorrect. Sometimes they are provided, sometimes they are aren't. Often quotes from a leader are summarized by the journalist. The comment you are responding to already addresses this. To argue that an article has to provide direct quotes to be considered valid is absurd, and you know it.

Your posts clearly indicate bias on this issue, therefore I do not trust your sources, especially when the information is published in a language I cannot read.

I do not know who you think you are fooling, the majority of the posters in a Chavez thread "indicates bias". Of course I am indicating bias, most people have one side or another which they are arguing in support of. As for your lack of trust, I don't go to Spanish-language sources because I think they are inherently trustworthy, I go there because they will often have several quotes of what Chavez said verbatim.

Further, I will often provide the translation of what he said. "But wait, I don't trust your translation", you might say. Well you really ought to, because I have no intention of trying to mislead anyone on the matter. If I did I would easily be called out on it by somebody for providing a bad translation. The only time that anyone ever attempted to do so they claimed that "demanding that someone do something" and "ordering someone to do something" were completely different in meaning and that one was a distortion of the other. This is not only crap, it is a completely sad and desperate attempt at not giving up on the losing end of an argument, but I digress.

Point being, every single thread where Chavez says something appalling undemocratic, the usual suspects are here immediately to attempt to discredit the AP, NY Times, etc. as misquoting/mistranslating what he said. I often show up to show that, yeah, is really is what he said and every single time, the English article has turned out to be accurate. This is usually ignored and the process begins anew a few days later.

[ronnie624]

95. Any article that 'summarizes' the words of another person,

then proceeds to provide no quotes, is an article that is not worth the paper it is written on, and you know it.

As for your points about bias, I suppose it is true that most of us have one, but the bias of those who oppose Chavez is different, more extreme. Their arguments are vicious and angry and they tend to use labels and descriptives that, at the very least are subjective in nature, and at worst, simply do not apply at all. Such terms as despot, dictator, asshat, despicable, communist, and other such twaddle are regularly employed against Chavez by detractors who know very well that he was elected by a large majority of the Venezuelan people, in elections that were possibly more closely monitored than any others in history. The terms listed above are for attempted character assassination, and nothing else.

Many times, Chavez detractors will make statements that are obviously false, such as:

-He stacked the courts
-He eliminated opposition media
-He's indoctrinating children

Apparently, the Chavez haters are hoping no one will notice the Venezuelan Congress, and that many of the changes to the Venezuelan government are ratified by general elections, and that all are apparently consistent with Venezuelan law.

Another favored tactic, is posting links to 'reports' by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch addressing human rights abuses by the Venezuelan government, that were written before the ICC dismissed the charges because of a lack of evidence, and because of many inconsistencies in 'eye-witness' testimony. As an aside, this is one reason I take reports by AI and HRW on Venezuela with a large grain of salt. I also have a problem with public statements made by AI's Latin American Regional Director (whose name currently escapes me), indicating support for US policies in Latin America. I assume he was including those of the Reagan Administration.

No, the bias I refer to is not the normal bias of a thinking individual with an open mind. I refer to the sort of bias that drives the vicious, illogical spew and the bald faced lies of a hot-headed ideologue with an angry ax to grind.

And your claim that I do not wish to hear the opinions of others
is clearly rendered nonsense by the fact that I read many threads in their entirety every day, and by the fact that we are now exchanging messages.

Good day to you, nick303

[nick303]

106. Not true.

Any article that 'summarizes' the words of another person, then proceeds to provide no quotes, is an article that is not worth the paper it is written on, and you know it.

Wrong Ronnie, I don't know it. It's a matter of journalistic style. Sometimes an article provides the original quotes, sometimes it doesn't. If I am skeptical or just curious I can search around for someone else covering the same story to try to find the original quotes. To demonstrate this, I will go through this rather short AP article and show how it accurately covers the story at hand, which is the original issue we were dealing with. Feel free to run any of these through a translator, though if you look closely there are many words that are similar to English, so you can almost piece it together yourself.

==========

Article:
Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants," said Chavez, speaking on the first day of classes.

Actual:
Spanish: “La sociedad no puede aceptar que el sector privado haga lo que le dé la gana".
Translation: "Society cannot accept that the private sector do what they wish"

Check.

==========

Article:
All schools, public and private, must admit state inspectors and submit to the government's new educational system, or be closed and nationalized, with the state taking responsibility for the education of their children, Chavez said.


Actual:
Spanish: "Chávez dijo que “todas las escuelas, públicas y privadas, deberán permitir el ingreso de inspectores del gobierno y someterse al sistema educativo bolivariano. El que no quiera, bueno va a tener que cerrar su escuela y el Estado se hará responsable de la educación de los niños”."

Translation:
"All schools, public and private, should permit government inspectors to enter and submit themselves to the bolivarian education system. Those that do not want to, it is better to have to close their school and the state will become responsible for the education of the children."

Check.

=========

A new curriculum will be ready by the end of this school year, and new textbooks are being developed to help educate "the new citizen," said Chavez's brother and education minister Adan Chavez, who joined him a televised ceremony at the opening of a public school in the eastern town of El Tigre.

Actual quote:
"Adán Chávez señaló que este proceso incluye la elaboración de textos escolares adaptados a la propuesta en cuestión. Se trata de “los textos que realmente necesitan los docentes y todos los actores sociales del hecho educativo, para lograr efectivamente el nuevo ciudadano y la nueva ciudadana”. "

Translation:
Adan Chavez pointed out that this process includes the development of textbooks adapted to the proposal in question. They are about ' The texts that the educational centers and really need, to manage the new citizen.'

Check.

(Note: I had noted before that Hugo Chavez has referred previously to "el hombre nuevo" in the same context, here they do actually say "the new citizen".)

=========

Article:

The president's opponents accuse him of aiming to indoctrinate young Venezuelans with socialist ideology. But the education minister said the aim is to develop "critical thinking," not to impose a single way of thought.

Actual:

Can we find a named opponent to say so? Yes, we can.

Roberto Enríquez, del partido opositor Copei, señaló que detrás de la propuesta de reforma constitucional que incluye cambios en el sistema educativo está introducir el marxismo en Venezuela.

"Intenta inocular dentro de la sociedad venezolana el virus del comunismo y esto lo decimos de forma muy objetiva".

Translation:

Roberto Enriquez, of the opposition party Copei, pointed out that within the proposed constitutional reform, which includes changes in the educational system, is to introduce marxism in Venezuela.

'It indends to inoculate within Venezuelan society the virus of communism ... "

Check.

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/newsid_7000000/7000057.stm
http://www.minci.gob.ve/noticias-prensa-presidencial/28/15791/presidente_chez_reconocilabor.html

I hope at least the second one is acceptable to you, since it is a site run by the Venezuelan government itself.

As for your comments on how nasty we are, I don't use the words you are listing all that much, and to say that the Chavistas on DU are saints is quite a stretch. Quite often they will accuse anyone opposed to them of being right-wingers, which is against forum rules. I could drone on but it is pretty late so I will call it a post right here.

[ronnie624]

108. I'm not interested in any of this.

I would prefer a well reasoned argument on how the Venezuelan government's institution of universal standards for education - not unlike those of most other countries, including the United States - makes Hugo Chavez a despot or a dictator or an asshat.

Nothing in your post addresses any of the issues raised in the OP's article.
But that isn't surprising. Chavez's 'critics' excel at disruption and distraction.

[nick303]

109. You really ought to be,

since the post you first responded to was not a response to the OP. You picked a fight over the accuracy in reporting of the AP article, which I have shown was completely accurate. THAT was the topic at hand. As is standard for a Chavista, you are now trying to change the subject rather than letting it go and admitting defeat. I must admit that typically I do not respond to a poster such as you in hopes of changing his mind--I cannot do the impossible. I mainly post for others reading this thread who are on the fence on this matter.

To respond to the rest of your post, "institution of universal standards for education" sounds pretty harmless on its own. However that these standards are shaped by a political ideology should raise some red flags. I also have a major problem with a government threatening to close private schools. Private schools charge tuition, so people unhappy with their education are free to leave. I had many friend who switched from a private high school to the public one because they did not like the kind of education they were getting there. Choice is always better, and it looks like that may be at risk here. I'm not a fan.

[ronnie624]

110. On the fence on the matter?

You mean like Judi Lynn?

As for the blather about political ideology being present in school standards, no school system in the world - and I mean none - has ever been created without ideological consideration.

More nonsense and distractions.

[nick303]

111. Re:

"On the fence" means undecided, so the answer to your question is no, though I have a feeling you are pulling my leg (I really hope so).

"More nonsense and distractions."

Is this what you repeat every time you are beat in an argument? You conveniently dodged the subject of the government threatening to shutter private schools.

[ronnie624]

112. I don't know what "shutter" means,

but other posters have already pointed out that private schools in the United States must adhere to regulation. Are US schools also being 'shuttered'?

The remark about Judi Lynn was indeed a joke. You said you prefer to post to those "on the fence", but I noticed you posting messages to Judi Lynn.

On edit, I apologize for the lengthy delays in my replies. I work around 70 hours per week, so many times after posting a message, I must leave immediately. Neither will I compromise the time required to read articles and essays posted by other DUers or the time spent reading books. Currently I am reading Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow, a fascinating and informative read.

[Judi Lynn]

113. It appears that Democrats are the only ones humble enough to have the hunch there may be something

yet they don't already know and lower themselves long enough to read!

It's always a treat reading your comments.

[ronnie624]

114. Thank you so much for the compliment!

:blush:

[nick303]

117. Hint

Whenever you come across a word you don't know, hit Ctrl+T. This will open a new tab in your browser. Then go to http://www.m-w.com and look the word up. 10 seconds and you are done.

[ronnie624]

120. I don't need to do all of that.

I use Mozilla Firefox.

[BornagainDUer]

131. thanks for this PP!

[hughee99]

42. I don't see the problem here...

Chavez is right, if these private schools won't submit to the state's educational system, then the government should take over the school and make sure that all of Venezuela's young learn how to be "new citizens". Besides, who the F' do these people running private schools think they are to presume they might know more about how to educate a child than Chavez's own, eminently qualified brother, Adan Chavez.

Chavez doesn't want to indoctrinate anyone, he just wants "to educate the new individual centered on values and consciousness." Because without revolutionary ideology there cannot be a Revolution. I dare say any reasonable American wouldn't have an issue if the president decided to educate our young centered on his concept of values and consciousness.

:sarcasm:

[midlife_mo_Jo]

67. Scary, huh?

I wonder how many people who think Andrew Meyer has a right to free speech (which he didn't in that particular circumstance) are supporting Chavez in this.

Education, free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association are all closely connected. When I see how many people here support Chavez and Castro, it really scares me. One can be against the embargo and abysmal behavior on the part of the U.S., one can recognize the good in countries like Cuba and Venezuela without fully supporting dictators.

Which party is going to protect the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights? I fear no one. I truly fear that some on the left would be just as oppressive as Bush in the name of "justice." Scary.

[Enrique]

46. education policy in Venezuela

naturally a matter of concern to American citizens.

[redqueen]

100. The Chavez haters will seize on ANYTHING to vent their bile...

I don't get where all the hostility comes from... well, that's not true actually, I do have my suspicions.

[robcon]

54. First eliminate opposition media. Then control the schools.

Hugo learned well from Fidel how to run a dictatorship.

[Realityhack]

55. Does ANYONE here have...

any actual FACTS about this proposal? Like exactly what it is? What is the translated text of the exact proposal?

why are we always arguing about Chavez/Venezuela without a single actual fact?

Are we talking meeting minimum guidelines? Or are we talking about using history books approved in Texas?

[Clanfear]

57. Is there an accepted list of fact finders?

I doubt quotes that come from AP, Globovision, or el Tiempo are accepted as facts. I would guess only the state run ABN is the only "reliable" source.

But there are plently of quotes around, and as you would probably guess they aren't too kind to the notion of forcing private schools to submit to the government or else be shut down or overtaken.

[Judi Lynn]

73. The more you examine what we're getting as "information" on Latin America, the more

you become determined to find out everything you can! It's a very dirty, ugly picture.

I've looked all over for more info. on the subject you mention, and there isn't anything available for the non-Spanish speaking ones among us.

Here's a refresher look at just who is managing public perception here concerning Venezuela:

Otto Reich’s Misinformation Campaign

Otto Reich was the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, the position Roger Noriega holds today, during the April 2002 coup d’鴡t against President Chávez. This author has disclosed numerous documents from the Department of State and the CIA that evidence U.S. involvement in that coup.<13> Amongst these documents is a heavily censured cable marked “confidential”, drafted by Otto Reich, laying out the State Department’s position on the coup. Despite the fact that the U.S. Government was well aware of the detailed coup plans, as revealed in a CIA Senior Executive Intelligence Brief dated April 6, 2002<14>, Reich, the master of mis-information, told all diplomatic representatives of the U.S. that they were to promote this false version of events:

“On April 11, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans gathered to seek redress of their grievances. Chávez supporters fired on anti-government protestors resulting in more than 100 wounded or killed….The government prevented five independent television stations from reporting on events. After meeting with senior military officers, Chávez allegedly resigned the presidency. A provisional civilian government, led by Pedro Carmona, assumed power and promised early elections.”<15>

The intent of the U.S. Government was to misinform the world of the events giving rise to the illegal coup d’鴡t that briefly overthrew President Chávez, therefore justifying its own participation in such actions and reinforcing its strategy to “legitimately” remove Chávez from power. The fact that the U.S. Government had clear knowledge of the coup plans and actors in the weeks before the coup provides undisputed evidence of this fact. The CIA intelligence brief of April 6, 2002 unmistakably informed top level U.S. Government officials that, “Dissident military factions…are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chávez…the level of detail in the reported plans…targets Chávez and 10 other senior officials for arrest…To provoke military action, the plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations…”

The CIA briefs from the weeks before also claimed knowledge of the coup’s organizers: “…the private sector, the media, the Catholic Church and opposition political parties…. disgruntled military officers…still planning a coup, possibly early this month…”<16>

Reich’s efforts at the time of the coup against President Chávez in Venezuela were merely to continue what he was best at, disseminating false information – propaganda – intended to promote U.S. foreign policy, just as he had done fifteen years early in Nicaragua.

Today’s campaign against Venezuela starkly parallels those tactics used back in the eighties by the Office of Public Diplomacy. Though Reich no longer maintains an official position within the Bush Administration, his capacity as a private sector U.S. Government Consultant on International Affairs clearly shows his ties and influence remain. And others in powerful positions within the U.S. Government are his colleagues from the low intensity conflict years in Central America during the Reagan-Bush administrations. John Negroponte, former U.S. Ambassador in Honduras during the eighties is soon-to-be the new Director of National Intelligence, the highest capacity in the intelligence community, Charles Shapiro, ex-Ambassador to Venezuela during the coup who previously was a State Department diplomat in Central America during the eighties is now Under-Secretary of State for the Andean Region (covering Venezuela), Reich’s old buddy Roger Noriega took his place as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and Porter Goss, ex-CIA Official and member of the Operation 40 assassination squad in the 1960s, alongside Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch, is now Director of the CIA.

Such relationships and backgrounds make it no surprise to see that today’s campaign against Venezuela employs the same themes used, successfully, against the Sandinistas in the eighties. In addition to the similar use of the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID to funnel millions into Venezuelan opposition parties and NGOs, the U.S. Government attempts to portray Chávez in the same exact light as the Sandinistas. Repeated declarations from the State and Defense Departments, recycled in major U.S. media, claim the Chávez Government is engaging in a “military build-up” or “arms race” with its recent purchase of new weaponry from Russia (note that the U.S. Government is the ONLY government to express such concerns. None of Venezuela’s neighbors have even raised an eyebrow. And Brazil has publicly stated they have no concerns whatsoever with Venezuela’s recent arms purchase); that Chávez is a “communist” in the likes of Fidel Castro; that his government “violates human rights” including “freedom of the press”, the “right to assembly”, “freedom of speech”, “persecution of opposition groups and actors” and that his administration is responsible for the “poverty” and “economic devastation” that has affected the country in recent years.
(snip/...)

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/us_aggression_propaganda_golinger_8.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As some of the posters on this thread will step forward and attempt to discredit my links, I am proud to reccommend to those who really care, plunging in and starting their own journey of discovery personally, by reading whenever time presents the opportunity, on US/Latin American history, interventions, especially in the years during and since the Eisenhower administration, when all bets were off, and it became every man for himself, in earnest.

Those rigid little snotty attitudes flourish in the ABSENSE of information.

If I see any REAL information on this story, I'll be posting it here.

[Clanfear]

87. Question

"Here's a refresher look at just who is managing public perception here concerning Venezuela"

Are you suggesting that Otto Reich was in control of the media information being delivered to the US from the numerous sources around the world? I'm in no way defending Reich, but methinks you are giving him way too much credit for him swaying any and all Western and international media outlets in regards to Venezuelan goings on. Was the BBC controlled in their harsh reporting of Chavez by Reich? They wrote a piece last year about a nation divided, do you think that is untrue or propaganda?

Venezuela: A nation divided

Teodoro Petkoff, editor of the evening newspaper Tal Cual and a one-time opposition candidate, agrees that in the 20 years before Mr Chavez, "the parties that governed became navel-gazing electoral machines and no longer noticed the horrible impoverishment of the population". "In that fertile territory, Chavez flourished," Mr Petkoff, who was a left-wing guerrilla in the 1960s, says.

But, he argues: "It's a mistake to imagine that all the poor in Venezuela are with Chavez.

"At the beginning, there may have been a horizontal divide - but not any more. You'll find rich and poor on both sides.

"Both old and new rich back Chavez. I think that in wealthy neighbourhoods some people who speak publicly against Chavez will vote for him because they are making more money than ever."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6179612.stm


"I've looked all over for more info. on the subject you mention"

Which ones, the rampant inflation, the food shortages, or the heavy crude?

For more info on the heavy crude situation you can simply google: Venezuela heavy crude

[Judi Lynn]

89. Absolutely he was in charge of points of dissemination all over the world.

You only have to move it, and start researching, the way the rest of us do.

I will post material on this underhanded, dishonest Cuban "exile" when I have some time later. DU'ers are very well acquainted with his record.

You're spinning your wheels trying to bring Teodoro Petkoff into any serious discussion, although I'm certain he's a much-quoted source on right-wing boards.

Here's his publication's quality of work:



Original photo taken by a presidential palace photographer, showing Chavez holding a rose given to him by the audience.



Sep. 25 cover of Caracas newspaper Tal Cual showing doctored photo of Chavez "at gunpoint". The logo of the event was deleted from the picture.
Pretty trashy stuff.

Guns & Roses in Caracas, Chavez at gunpoint
September 29th 2003, by Lucila Gallino and Ralph Niemeyer

On Friday September 26, the newspaper “Tal Cual” ("As such"), opponent of the Government, was sent to the streets with an issue that became the scandal of the week. On the cover of the paper, President Chávez is shown holding a 9mm caliber gun on the left hand. The publication of this high impact photo is the full responsibility of the Editor of the paper, who will have to appear before the Law for falsification of information.

The "little retouch" that was done to the original photo is not as simple as changing an image for another one. In this case, a gun was digitally put in place of a red rose that had been given to the President during the First Women World Forum underway in Caracas. Chavez gave a speech at the Forum in which 190 women from 27 countries participated in support of Venezuela’s revolutionary process.

The retouching of this photomontage exceeds all boundaries of respect. On the background of the scene, there was a poster with the logo of the Forum. The logo in the altered photo was erased in order to put the photo out of context.

The original photo was taken by Feliciano Sequera, a photographer of the Miraflores Presidential Palace in the morning of September 24, - two days before the publication of the controversial Tal Cual issue- during President Chavez’s opening speech of the Women World Forum. There, he addressed the feminine audience in a very particular style for a President, with the tender and sweet familiar tone of a dear relative.
(snip/...)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/130



The Bush administration has floated the name of Otto Juan Reich for possible nomination as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs (see Al Kamen, “In the Loop,” The Washington Post, 15 February 2001). Mr. Reich served in the Reagan administration as assistant administrator of the Agency for International Development (AID) from 1981 to 1983, then as the first director of the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean (S/LPD) from 1983 to 1986, and finally as ambassador to Venezuela.
Mr. Reich’s tenure at the Office of Public Diplomacy generated major controversy during the exposure of the Iran-contra scandal and left an extensive document trail, some of the highlights of which are included in this Briefing Book. For example:

* The Comptroller-General of the U.S., a Republican appointee, found that some of the efforts of Mr. Reich’s public diplomacy office were “prohibited, covert propaganda activities,” “beyond the range of acceptable agency public information activities….” The same September 30, 1987 letter concluded that Mr. Reich’s office had violated “a restriction on the State Department’s annual appropriations prohibiting the use of federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by Congress.” The letter also said, “We do not believe, however, that available evidence will support a conclusion that the applicable antilobbying statute has been violated.”

* The General Accounting Office in an October 30, 1987 letter and report found that Mr. Reich’s office “generally did not follow federal regulations governing contractual procedures” in its contracting “with numerous individuals and several companies.” The GAO quoted Mr. Reich as saying “he was generally unfamiliar with the details related to the office’s contracting procedures. Instead he relied on his staff as well as State’s procurement office to ensure that federal regulations were adhered to.”

* The bipartisan report of the Congressional Iran-contra committees (November 1987, p. 34) found that “n fact, ‘public diplomacy’ turned out to mean public relations-lobbying, all at taxpayers’ expense.” The committees concluded their discussion by quoting the Comptroller-General’s findings in the September 30, 1987 letter. A detailed critique of the public diplomacy operation, written by Iran-contra committee staff, was deleted from the Iran-contra report after heated partisan debate (see Robert Parry and Peter Kornbluh, “Iran-Contra’s Untold Story,” Foreign Policy, No. 72, Fall 1988, pp. 3-30).

* A staff report by the House Foreign Affairs Committee (September 7, 1988) summarized various investigations of Mr. Reich’s office and concluded that “senior CIA officials with backgrounds in covert operations, as well as military intelligence and psychological operations specialists from the Department of Defense, were deeply involved in establishing and participating in a domestic political and propaganda operation run through an obscure bureau in the Department of State which reported directly to the National Security Council rather than through the normal State Department channels…. Through irregular sole-source, no-bid contracts, S/LPD established and maintained a private network of individuals and organizations whose activities were coordinated with, and sometimes directed by, Col. Oliver North as well as officials of the NSC and S/LPD. These private individuals and organizations raised and spent funds for the purpose of influencing Congressional votes and U.S. domestic news media. This network raised and funneled money to off-shore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or to the secret Lake Resources bank account in Switzerland for disbursement at the direction of Oliver North. Almost all of these activities were hidden from public view and many of the key individuals involved were never questioned or interviewed by the Iran/Contra Committees.”

* Mr. Reich responded in detail to questioning by staff of the Iran/Contra Committees in a formal deposition on July 15, 1987. The full text of the 122-page deposition is included here. Part of the questioning revolved around a lengthy March 20, 1985 memo written by Oliver North to National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, providing “the chronology of events aimed at securing Congressional approval for renewed support to the Nicaraguan Resistance Forces.” The chronology contains repeated listings of actions to be taken by “State/LPD (Reich)”; however, Mr. Reich testified that he “never saw it as a tasking memorandum” and that he was unaware that his contractors were involved in lobbying efforts or ads targeted on specific members of Congress. North’s memo also referred to an advertisement (“53 cents per day supports a freedom fighter”) that was off-message; the text of the ad was attached to Mr. Reich’s deposition as an exhibit.

* On March 12, 1985, one of Mr. Reich’s staff, Daniel “Jake” Jacobowitz, on detail from the U.S. Air Force, wrote a detailed “public diplomacy action plan” that paralleled the North chronology, with candid commentary about the lobbying campaign including a three-item list of audiences: “U.S. Congress,” “U.S. media,” and “interest groups.”

* On March 13, 1985, Mr. Reich’s deputy, Johnathan S. Miller, wrote a two-page report to White House director of communications Pat Buchanan, giving what Miller called “ive illustrative examples of the Reich ‘White Propaganda’ operation.” These included op-eds the office had written or placed covertly, without any acknowledgement of the government’s role, and planned op-eds under the contra leaders’ bylines.

* Mr. Reich sought and obtained staff for his office by getting them detailed from various U.S. military units engaged in “psychological operations.” The declassified documents include requests for these detailees on March 5, 1985 and on September 18, 1985, a staff discussion of the need for detailees on December 10, 1985, a December 16, 1985 request for certificates of appreciation for five detailees, and a plaintive memo to NSC staffer and former CIA official Walt Raymond on January 5, 1986 complaining that the Pentagon had turned down a new request for detailees. Perhaps the most illuminating discussion of the psyops detailees can be found in a May 30, 1985 memo from Jake Jacobowitz to Mr. Reich about the impending arrival of five detailees, calling them the “A-team” and including the comment “Since he is a PSYOP type he will also be looking for exploitable themes and trends….”
(snip/...)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB40/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You really SHOULD start informing yourself in order to keep up with the people you're trying to run down. There's a great deal of material out there you apparently need to encounter on this man's grimey career as a Republican a-hole.

[Clanfear]

90. We'll have to continue this tomorrow

I'm heading to bed. I wasn't bringing Teodoro Petkoff into the disucssion beside the fact that the BBC used him as a source for their article. You may feel that that was the doings of Reich, but I highly doubt it.

[Judi Lynn]

102. More information for you on Cuban

Otto Reich, who worked for right-wing Presidents Reagan, _{Bush the Elder,} and current President _{George W. Bush.} He was instrumental in the run-up to the kidnapping and coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, as noted even by ordinary U.S. corporate media.

posted April 19, 2001 (May 7, 2001 issue)
Bush's Contra Buddies
Peter Kornbluh


~snip~
The nomination of Otto Reich to be Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere is even more offensive to international and domestic principles. A longtime anti-Castro Cuban-American, Reich is backed by Senator Jesse Helms and the hard-line exile groups that want political payback for giving Bush his real or imagined margin of victory in Florida.

Like Negroponte, Reich was a key player in the illicit contra war. In 1983 a CIA propaganda specialist named Walter Raymond handpicked Reich to head the new and innocuous-sounding Office of Public Diplomacy. Housed in the State Department, Reich's office actually answered directly to Raymond and to Oliver North in the White House. A General Accounting Office review showed that Reich's office repeatedly provided sole source contracts to other members of North's network, including those involved in illegal fundraising for arms. More important, a Comptroller General's review concluded that Reich's office had "engaged in prohibited, covert propaganda activities designed to influence the media and the public."

Among those activities, as revealed in declassified records, were "white propaganda" operations--having contractors plant articles in the press or influence print and TV coverage while hiding their government connection--and using US military psychological warfare personnel to engage in, as Reich put it, "persuasive communications" intended to influence public opinion.

Reich himself engaged in a crude form of "persuasive communications," personally berating media executives and harassing reporters if news coverage was not favorable to the Reagan Administration's position. When NPR's All Things Considered ran the first major investigative report on contra human rights atrocities, Reich demanded a meeting with its editors, producers and reporters, at which he informed them that his office was "monitoring" all their programs and that he considered NPR to be biased against the contras and US policy. A Washington Post stringer remembers that after a contentious briefing from Reich in Managua in which the stringer and a reporter from Newsweek questioned the truthfulness of the Administration's assertions, an article appeared in a right-wing newsletter put out by Accuracy in Media calling him a "johnny sandinista" and falsely asserting that the Nicaraguan government was providing the two reporters with prostitutes. Reich's office, the then-US Ambassador to Managua told the Post reporter, was responsible for the rumors.

Reich's role as a revolving-door lobbyist is also likely to be a factor in his nomination hearings. As a partner in the Brock Group, a lobbying firm that according to Justice Department records represented the anti-Castro liquor giant Bacardi, Reich advised Jesse Helms's office on the drafting of the Helms-Burton legislation, which tightens the embargo against Cuba. Since passage of the law in 1996, Reich's own lobbying firm, RMA International, has received $600,000 in payments from Bacardi. Another Reich organization, the US-Cuba Business Council, has received more than $520,000 in US Agency for International Development money for anti-Castro work supporting the goals of the Helms-Burton law. If he's confirmed, Reich would become the key policy-maker interpreting and implementing legislation on Cuba, which he was handsomely paid to promote--a clear conflict of interest.
(snip/...)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010507/kornbluh







Reich, left foreground.If you could walk
that way you wouldn't need talcum powder.

[Clanfear]

124. I an familiar with Otto Reich

I have read many articles detailing his pursuits against Venezuela. None of that though bolsters the notion that he has some direct influence over international media outlets. I'm getting the feeling that you are taking the position that because Otto Reich is bad that Chavez must be good. The same could be said for Teodoro Petkoff. I can't see that he has done much of anything but be against Chavez, and therefore he must be bad. He did commit an unforgivable sin by doctoring that Chavez photo, though.

[Judi Lynn]

130. The bulk of Reich's filtiest work was already accomplished by the time Hugo Chavez was elected

by a dramatic landslide in his own country by his own countrymen.

Maybe you could recommend some of the articles on Reich's "pursuits against Venezuela." I had always believed, from the things I've read and heard, that the bulk of Otto Reich's filthiest work was already accomplished long before Hugo Chavez had even run for office in 1998. You could surely enlighten us.

You will find a reference in the bolded segment, a clear reference to his, in your words, "direct influence over international media outlets."

Here's more on Otto Reich:

The most recent resurrection of this trio of right-wing renegades is the appointment of Otto Reich as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. President Bush used the tricky recess appointment procedure to bypass potential hostile and damaging questioning by Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Senators had some interesting examples of Mr. Reich's malfeasance to ask him about when he was the director of the State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy(OPD).

On September 30, 1987 a Republican appointed comptroller general of the U.S. found that Reich had done things as director of the OPD that were "prohibited, covert propaganda activities, "beyond the range of acceptable agency public information activities...". The same report said Mr. Reich's operation violated "a restriction on the State Department's annual appropriations prohibiting the use of federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by Congress." Reich used the covert propaganda to demonize the democratically elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua and establish the Contras as fearless freedom fighters. The purpose was to make the U.S. public afraid enough of the Sandinistas to get Congress to fund the Contras directly. The Boland Amendment was passed by Congress in 1982 that prohibited U.S. funds from being used to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. Meanwhile, the Contras were being illegally armed by the Reagan administration via the Iran-Contra arms deal.

On the night of Reagan's re-election in 1984, Reich's office put out the news that "intelligence sources"revealed that Soviet MIG fighter jets were arriving in Nicaragua and Andrea Mitchell interrupted election night coverage on NBC to give the phony report. This resembles the Joseph Goebbel's fabrication that Polish troops had attacked German soldiers to give the Third Reich an excuse to launch the Nazi blitzkrieg into Poland to begin World War II in 1939. Other Reich prevarications given to media sources included: Nicaragua had been given chemical weapons by the Soviets, according to the Miami Herald; and leaders of the Sandinistas were involved in drug trafficking, according to Newsweek magazine.

In Latin American countries the United States has a history of doing business and siding with wealthy oligarchies of business, professional and military elites who tend to be lighter skinned people of European descent against the poor and working class composed mainly of darker skinned, indigenous people and those of African descent. The second Bush administration appears to be adhering to this tradition with gusto. With Otto Reich churning out the hate and fear, it is a safe bet to predict that President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela will be increasingly presented as the devil incarnate and his government as evil, anti-American terrorists. Mr. Reich will dish out the poisonous propaganda to every news source that covers the Bush administration's Latin American policy. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
(snip/...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/turnip0418.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~snip~
Nicaragua: Baptism of Fire of Psychological Warfare
During the presidential term of Ronald Reagan, Otto Reich was appointed Director of the Department for Latin America of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from 1981 until 1983 <1>. John Bolton, currently the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, was then the general advisor of the organization. According to him, the agency served as «a CIA affiliate whose goal was the promotion of the political and economic interests of the federal government thanks to the financing of foreign assistance programs» <2>.

From 1983 until 1986, Reich was picked up by Walter Raymond, a former CIA agent and specialist in propaganda, to direct the famous Office of Public Diplomacy (OPD), «a secret unit of psychological warfare and media indoctrination», under the guidance of Colonel Oliver North, then member of the National Security Council. According to William Raymond, the role of the OPD was to “sell” a new product in the United States: «Central America» <3>.

In those days, the United States was involved in the support of the extreme right-wing Contras guerrillas which opposed the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The role of the Office of Public Diplomacy in this matter was to provide false information to international and US domestic press in order to influence public opinion in favour of the Contras. Thus, they affirmed that the Soviets were giving the Sandinistas MIG combat jets and that the Marxist guerrillas were buying American journalists with prostitutes. A report of activities by the United States General Controller, dating from 1987 <4> concluded that Otto Reich had carried out «forbidden and secret propaganda activities, aimed at influencing the media and the public so that they would support the US Latin America policy» <5>.
(snip)

Again using his ability in matters of propaganda, Otto Reich also participated, during the whole period, in the manipulation of the media, thanks to the invaluable help of magnate Gustavo Cisneros «who owns, especially, AOL Latin America, DIRECT TV Latin America (300 radio and television networks in 28 countries) and Univisión (the US Hispanic television network)». It was all those media outlets that broadcast the lies about Hugo Chávez ordering his troops to open fire against his opponents. By the way, Otto Reich never denied that he kept in touch with Gustavo Cisneros in those days.

According to our information, he may have even chosen himself the officers that would participate in the coup in his capacity as administrator of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC) of Fort Benning, formerly known as the School of the Americas <20>. This school trained Latin American military personnel and also served to recruit agents in the region.
(snip/...)

http://www.voltairenet.org/article30034.html

[Clanfear]

133. What are you trying to accomplish here?

You keep focusing on insignificant issues. Posting more articles of Reich does not address the issuesof today. He's been gone from more than three years.

What impact does he have today in influencing the international media coverage of Venezuela? I would say, NONE.

[Flanker]

107. I will buy the text and post links I guess

Eventually when they are made available, I don't know when people will learn to debate what is factual and not what the bombastic media (or Chavez himself) says.

[nick303]

64. Original sources

I suggest googling either

1) "Chavez" "escuelas"

2) The eerie "new citizen" is "el hombre nuevo" (literally, "the new man").

[Judi Lynn]

74. The "eerie" ""the new man"" is prominent in Christian writings.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bible+%22new+man%22

For sure. Not eerie to Christians.

[nick303]

80. It was unfamiliar to me.

I still stand by what I said. The usage of it is eerie.

[Snarkturian Clone]

81. As I always say in Chavez threads...

Yet another step toward comic book Super-Villainy!

[Judi Lynn]

83. They HAD "Super-Villainy" with the Bush friend and ally, Carlos Andres Perez,

the impeached, imprisoned, disgraced, wildly corrupt President who raised the cost of transportation and other extremely neccessary items in daily life of the poor of Venezuela far beyond their ability to pay, stuffed his own pockets, then ordered his national police to fire into the crowds of protestors when they came out into the streets, in the massacre which became known as "El Caracazo," in 1989.

That son of a bitch would actually fit your label.

He's still very popular with the "opposition" in Venezuela, and maintains homes in the U.S. Just the right-wing answer to the terrifying threat of a more merciful life for the poor.



Mr. "Right Wing U.S. Loves Me" Carlos Andres Perez
Authentically a "Super-Villainy"

[Snarkturian Clone]

85. Do you think maybe that

I could make some fast cash if I mass-produce 12 foot statues of Chavez that say "Lawgiver" on them?

[Judi Lynn]

88. Washington Promotes 'Independent' Media in Venezuela

Washington Promotes 'Independent' Media in Venezuela
Written by Michael Barker
Tuesday, 18 September 2007

For some time it has been apparent that President Hugo Chavez – the democratically elected President of Venezuela – and his government have been on the US’s ‘regime change shopping list’. Such coup-inspiring attitudes were especially transparent in 2006, when the US’s National Security Strategy noted that: “In Venezuela, a demagogue awash in oil money is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region.”<1> So given the US government’s evident hostility towards Chavez’s emancipatory politics, it is not too surprising that their incessant propaganda is duly amplified by their corporate mouthpieces, the US media.<2> Similarly, British-based media watchdog, Medialens, have amply documented how supposedly progressive media outlets (e.g. the BBC) have contributed their part to the global disinformation campaign being waged against Chavez.<3> It is all too obvious that in the eyes of the world’s ruling elites Chavez is promoting the ‘wrong kind’ of democracy, that is, popular democracy instead of low-intensity democracy (or polyarchy).

To remedy the democratic problem that Venezuela poses to the interests of transnational capitalism, the US’s main democracy manipulating body, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), has been busily financing opposition groups within Venezuelan civil society. Most famously such ‘democratic’ interventions have seen the NED and its cohorts facilitate the unsuccessful coup that temporarily removed Chavez from power in 2002. <4> More recently though, a central prong of the US governments War on Democracy <5> has been to criticise Chavez’s domestic media policies, which have been widely reported in the international corporate media as being hostile to “freedom of expression”. <6>

Considering the miserable state of affairs of the US’s ‘mainstream’ media, <7> it is strange that earlier this year this same media vilified the Venezuelan government for failing to renew the licence of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). The irony of this situation is especially delightful because the CIA-linked <8> RCTV is “one of the oldest and largest opposition-controlled TV stations”, was an active participant in the US/NED-backed coup of 2002, and has been busy leading mediated attempts to oust Chavez from office ever since. <9>

While it has been well reported in the progressive media that the NED-linked media watchdog Reporters Without Borders <10> has been at the forefront of recent efforts to de-legitimize Venezuela’s media policies, <11> this same progressive media has for the most part overlooked the role of similarly ‘democratic’ human rights groups in facilitating such attacks. Noteworthy exceptions to this trend include two recent articles written by Greg Grandin <12> and Gregory Wilpert respectively: the latter of whom notes that is “very disappointing to see international human rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch, the Washington Office on Latin America, the Carter Center, and the Committee to Protect Journalists condemn the government’s decision” to revoke RCTV’s license. <13> (For further details on the close links that exist between the NED and these human rights groups see Hijacking Human Rights). <14>

More:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/896/1/

[Peace Patriot]

91. Here is an article that describes the Bolivarian curriculum in a little more detail.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2618

It is published under the Creative Commons license, which means you can quote it at length if you give it proper attribution, are not doing so for money, and don't alter the content.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

-----

"Venezuela Launches New “Bolivarian” Education Curriculum
"September 19th 2007, by Chris Carlson – Venezuelanalysis.com

"Mérida, September 19, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)- With the inauguration of 15 new Bolivarian Schools, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez kicked off the 2007-2008 school year across the country this week. The president visited a primary and a secondary school on Monday where he announced the new Bolivarian education curriculum to which he said all schools in Venezuela, including private schools, will have to abide. Chavez emphasized his government's high budget for education that will go towards improving and expanding the public school system.

"'We have to continue building the Bolivarian school system,' said Chavez, who emphasized the importance of 'continuing the transformation of the old schools into Bolivarian schools.'

"The Bolivarian school is the new the public school system developed under the Chavez government in recent years that includes all-day schooling and three meals per day. A total of 4,746 public schools had been integrated into the Bolivarian school system by 2006 and a total of 1,020 more were incorporated for the 2007-2008 school year to make a total of 5,766 Bolivarian schools across the country. Chavez said that all public schools would be incorporated into the Bolivarian system by 2010.

"The president also emphasized the government's commitment to the nation's education system and underlined the high percentage of the national budget dedicated to education. At the inauguration of a new Bolivarian secondary school in the state of Monagas, Chavez reported that 7.4 percent of national income was dedicated to education, a number that is comparable to most developed countries, he assured.

"'This year we are going to have additional income because we have known how to defend the price of petroleum and the economy keeps growing,' said Chavez, adding that he would continue to review the necessities of the national public school system. 'A large part of the additional funds will go to the construction of new schools, from preschools to universities,' he said.

"At the new Bolivarian secondary school Chavez criticized the situation of the public school system under previous governments. The president recalled that the national budget for education when he came to power was at 3.6 percent of national income, and that the state didn't have money to pay teachers nor basic expenses "and much less to build new schools," he said.

"'The poverty in the country was really high. Today we have begun to rebuild. This year we will build more new secondary schools,' he said.

Chavez explained that the new school curriculum would leave behind the "colonial, Eurocentric, ideological education," of earlier times that "taught us to admire the conquistadors." He criticized education systems that are based on capitalist values and "promote consumerism and contempt for others."

"The new Bolivarian education is based on four pillars: learn to create, learn to participate and coexist, learn to value, and learn to reflect. The new curriculum was designed by the Ministry of Education, led by the president's brother Adan Chavez, and all schools will be required to abide by the program. The ministry will also release official textbooks to be used by all schools.

"'We want to create our own collective, creative and diverse ideology,' said Chavez.

"The president also explained that private schools would be required to follow the national education system as well. Although he assured that private schooling could continue to function in the country, he warned that he would close or nationalize any school that refused to abide by the national curriculum.

"'We can't let a private school do whatever it wants,' he said, explaining that government supervision must be allowed in all schools and that the private sector "must obey the Constitution and the Bolivarian national education system.'

"Chavez emphasized that private schools in every country must permit government supervision. 'Go to Germany, to the United States, or to any country in the world to see if ,' he said. 'They close the school, they intervene, or they nationalize it,' he said.

"The president emphasized that nearly 9 million students are now incorporated into the formal education system and that, together with those in the educational missions, more than 50 percent of the population is studying. Chavez assured that Venezuela is one of only countries in the world where almost 60 percent of the population is included in the education system.

"The number of teachers has also significantly increased in the country. Chavez pointed out that in the 1999-2000 school year there was an average of 62 students per teacher, a number that has now been improved to 28 students per teacher.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2618

[Judi Lynn]

93. The propagandists obviously are counting on reactionary "readers" not taking the time

to look more deeply into the information!

Right there, in black and white, in your Chris Carlson article, a remark by Hugo Chavez which absolutely underscores things a few DU'ers have already pointed out earlier in this thread:

Chavez emphasized that private schools in every country must permit government supervision. 'Go to Germany, to the United States, or to any country in the world to see if ,' he said. 'They close the school, they intervene, or they nationalize it,' he said.
(snip)

How much clearer could that be? Not too close to the claims and charges flung about earlier.

Thanks for taking the time to write your excellent comments, and for adding this clarifying article. The real information SHOULD be what we're all after, after all!

[redqueen]

101. Sad that so many are so reliably happy to remain ignorant. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

103. Also astounding that they are so determined THEIRS is the only view that's going to be allowed!

As long as there's one voice left which doesn't bow down to their belief in right-wing universal power and supremacy, to be maintained at ALL costs, they won't be able to sleep!

The right-wing view of life on earth depends on total control of everything, everywhere! You no doubt remember Chile's Nixon-designated replacement for the murdered popularly elected Salvador Allende, the nasty, murderous tumor Augusto Pinochet, who was quoted saying "no blade of grass moved in Chile without his order."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,265371,00.html

Tedious people!

[redqueen]

104. It's really stunning...

What will it take before people stop dancing to the corporatists' tune?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

127. Yeah,

there's just a long list of private schools that have been nationalized here! How could I have forgotten? :sarcasm:


The government's involvement in private schools in the U.S. is miniscule - freedom of religion, freedom of speech , freedom of association all make private schools hands off to the government, as they should be.

[Nevernose]

121. Can you picture the guys trying to write the No Venezuelan Child Left Behind test?

Can you picture the guys trying to write the No Venezuelan Child Left Behind test?

"'Learn to participate and coexist?' How the f*** do we write a question for that? F*** it, from now on, if they mark an answer with 'E -- none of the above,' we'll count it for coexistence with one's fellow mankind. If they mark C, we take away money from poor kids. Sound like a plan?"

[Clanfear]

125. That article should calm fears.

There was nothing new in there that wasn't expressed by other media outlets, so it should ease peopel's feelings that Chavez's plan was not beng represented correctly in the press.

""Chavez emphasized that private schools in every country must permit government supervision. 'Go to Germany, to the United States, or to any country in the world to see if ,' he said. 'They close the school, they intervene, or they nationalize it,' he said."


I wonder if he could provide an example of that because I have never heard of that happening here.

[Peace Patriot]

92. And here is how the rightwing Bushbots in Venezuela respect free speech...

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2618

"Opposition Protestors Attack Venezuelan Regional Newspaper

"September 19th 2007, by Kiraz Janicke – Venezuelanalysis.com

"Caracas, September 19, 2007, (venezuelanalysis.com) - The National Guard remained stationed throughout streets of Maracaibo, capital of the Venezuelan state of Zulia, yesterday, to maintain calm after radical rightwing sectors affiliated with Venezuelan opposition protestors violently attacked the offices of privately owned Venezuelan regional daily, Panorama, on Monday, with the aim of shutting the newspaper down.

"Early Monday a group of supporters of the Secretary of Security of the state of Zulia, José "Mazuco" Sánchez, protested outside the Court of Justice as Sánchez was being transferred to face charges relating to the murder of Claudio Enrique Macías Briceño, a functionary of the Military Intelligence Directorate (DIM). Macías was carrying out intelligence investigations into regional police and government functionaries in Zulia, when the Penal Investigation Division (DIP) of the Regional Police Force of Zulia arrested him in "strange circumstances" on August 7 - he was found hanged in El Marite police prison the following day. Panorama reported on September 6 that an autopsy of Macías' body had found, "signs of violence, atypical of death by hanging."

"Later Monday, the same group of protestors, in a coordinated attack, took buses to the offices of Panorama-which has been regularly reporting on the Macías case-where they began throwing rocks, bottles, and other objects. The assault on the office lasted for more than half an hour before the National Guard and police arrived.

"Panorama journalist José Manuel Luengo said the attackers "screamed that they were going to shut down Panorama, many of them were throwing rocks at our offices. I couldn't go outside the building."

"Priselen Martínez, also a reporter for Panorama, explained that she was walking towards her workplace when "a group of enraged people ran towards the office. I had to jump into a bus to save myself from the hail of rocks."

"Sub-director of Panorama, Lolimar Suarez, said that the attack was aimed a 'cutting freedom of expression' and declared that there are opposition sectors in the region that have a strong interest in preventing this news from being published.

"However, Suarez added, 'Panorama will continue providing all the information, as it has done throughout its 93 year history.'

"In addition to investigating the Macías case, Panorama, owned by businessman Esteban Pineda Belloso, has also been strongly critical of the failure of Zulia Governor Manuel Rosales to combat the activities of paramilitaries and criminal gangs operating in Zulia with the alleged complicity of the Regional Police.

"Eleazar Díaz Rangel, the director of Venezuela's largest circulation daily Ultimas Noticias, condemned the attack on Panorama, and said that although he did not have proof he suspected the attacks were linked to Governor Rosales.

"Vice Minister for Communication and Information, Helena Salcedo also linked the attack on Panorama to Rosales. 'It would appear that the hand of the governor of Zulia was involved,' said Salcedo. In a clear reference to Rosales' former security advisor Henry Lopez Sisco, Salcedo charged that on June 13 of last year, in connection with a number of student and campesino massacres in the 1980s, 'We know his tactics and who have been his advisors; people that have been linked to repulsive acts and violations of human rights.'

"The president of the National College of Journalists, Levy Benchimol, also condemned the attack on Panorama saying, 'The National College of Journalists rejects every aggression against a medium of social communication; that intend to limit, intimidate, and threaten freedom of expression, freedom of information, and freedom of the press, because these acts are contrary to the democratic system.'

"Oscar Pérez, the secretary-general of the National College of Journalists in Zulia, added, 'Freedom of expression prevails in this moment in this country, which is why this union rejects the action that this important means of information was subjected to.'

"In a statement published yesterday in El Universal Rosales' political party Un Nuevo Tiempo criticized Panorama, claiming that the newspaper, along with the charges against Sánchez, are part of a 'macabre plot' by the national government to criminalize the institutions and government of Zulia.

"Venezuela's Attorney General, Isaías Rodríguez, denied yesterday that there was any kind of 'plot.'

-----------

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2618

Creative Commons license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

[devilgrrl]

94. Yeah, that Hugo Chavez. He's so scary that I now sleep with one eye open!

:eyes:

[BornagainDUer]

132. Well, its about time! Chavez has been to easy on seditionists. And just what

is wrong with teaching socialism? What gets me is how I was lied to from childhood about the true history of predatory capitalism. Fuck! I was raised to think that it was synonomous with freedom, democracy etc. and that socialism was synonomous with totalitarianism, etc. Only in my later years did I learn the truth about how the US corporations have tried to enslave the world in a feudal system that is contemptuous of democracy.

Chavez and Castro are fighting the bastards. Who else is?