"[...] –El presidente Chávez ha dicho que el socialismo del siglo XXI, entre otras cosas, es cogestión, cooperativismo (economía popular) y misión Barrio Adentro.
–Lo que se pretende es el llamado socialismo con rostro humano. William Izarra lo define "como el socialismo del bien común, de sentir el amor al prójimo y de actuar con base en la humildad para eliminar la rivalidad que genera el usufructo del poder."
Izarra habla como San Francisco de Asís. Lo que tenemos aquí es a un cordero, a una ovejita. Pero al lado de eso, plantea como parte del debate ideológico, que se realizará el próximo sábado 21 de mayo en Parque Central, lo que en lenguaje militar se llama guerra de IV generación.
El presidente Chávez hizo una mención a ese concepto en su programa Aló Presidente. ¿De qué se trata todo esto? Primero, infiltrar a la Fuerza Armada, es decir, calentarle la oreja a los militares; segundo, penetración y sabotaje en Pdvsa, por elementos vinculados a la ‘oligarquía, traidores a la patria y la CIA’ y, por último, la cohesión interna de factores políticos, vale decir de la oposición, para alcanzar esos objetivos. Una parte esencial de esa guerra, según Izarra, "es el empleo de los medios de comunicación como armas de combate" y se les considera, además, como un "instrumento de uso ideológico mucho más poderoso que una división militar." Ahí se está planteando la situación político-militar en la que nos encontramos. El militarismo es la ideología del régimen. [...]"
(Hugo Prieto, "A Chávez se le puede esquilmar sin trasquilarlo," entrevista con Héctor Silva Michelena, TalCual, 19 Mayo de 2005)
And the point is? Is there a point?
GP whats your problem?
Comment on the post or get out please.
You are trying to get banned?
I'm sorry but i don't think thats gonna happen.
Ms. O’Grady is a joke. Or maybe not.
Anyhow she is a good example of how someone who threatens the US hegemony is treated by Wall Street and the US elite. I dont read WSJ but O’Grady alone have made me lost any trust the paper.
Something about Petkof, I have no evidence but I do remember that he and somebody else at least did something (write, meet,etc) against the coup while the rest of the oposition was happy. It may have been after el Carmonazo, but I certainly remember something. That said the rest of the oposition did nothing and MCM for the first time proved her inability (or lack of desire) to protect democracy. The last time was when she met Bush, why did she not act for Iraqi democracy too? I mean she could have said something?
As for the piece in question it really makes you wonder what the heck is wrong with these editorials? are they that biased? Are these people being payed? Do they affect the public's opinion in the states?
Petkoff was definitely a coup supporter. He backed away to cover his tracks when he saw it was collapsing but that was only after Chavez supporters where successfully resisting the coup and a few of the more astute opposition types began to see the writing on the wall.
But on the 11th, when it was in full swing he was a big supporter of the coup and wrote a very nasty editorial in Tal Cual supporting it.
So Petkoff has no right to talk about democracy, law, seperation of powers, etc. - it is all BS coming from him. He is not any more moral than the rest of the opposition - just smarter.
As far as the editorials the WSJ is hardcore anti-Chavez. They see him as a threat to all of the Americas. They, like many other media and the US government, want pro-US governments that carry out pro-US policies. But it is always shocking to see papers outright lie. Makes you wonder about what else they could be lieing on that we aren't in a position to catch.
"[...] La militarización durante el sexenio de Chávez reviste un carácter singular, pues une a las fuerzas armadas depuradas con las autodepuradas y a la vez enlaza con las de Cuba, producto de una singularidad irrepetible, pues “el ejército rebelde” no nació del seno del batistero ni éste era un ejército profesional al estilo del venezolano. El comandante (Fidel Castro) se formó en la Sierra Maestra, Chávez en la Escuela Militar.
Insisto en mi tesis: el 18 de Octubre introdujo el virus golpista en una Venezuela que comenzaba a dar pininos en la democracia. La llamada Revolución de Octubre, coincidente con otros movimientos cuartelarios en América Latina después del fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, apostó al peligroso juego de acelerar el proceso democrático a través de una alianza entre un partido de características democráticas y una logia en cuyo seno cohabitaban descontentos con sus superiores y ambiciosos de poder. Betancourt y su círculo firmaron el pacto con el diablo."
(Jesús Sanoja Hernández, "Militarismo y militarización (VI)" El Nacional, 10 Junio 2005)
GP, you pathetic little oligarch boot-licker, now you are just trying to be disruptive as opposed to developing a debate of any sort.
Sad, and for this the empire gave you an education?
OW: "Now here is a final thought. Ms. O’Grady is something of an intelligent women. So wouldn’t you think the fact that she has to knowingly write so many lies and falsehoods would cause her to question what she is doing? I sure would hope so. Then again, maybe she just needs the paycheck."
Reading Noam Chomsky's and others' analysis of the 'intellectual' classes in societiers marked by vast contrasts between wealth and poverty is rather sobering.
Most intellectuals facilitate the maintenance of the status quo, or the continued rule of economic/social elites.
Petkoff fits this description, as does O'Grady from WSJ. These people sell distortions--but they are distortions that benefit capitalists, compradors, empire, and all the parasitic lackies (like GP) that fall inbetween, who willfully consume and regurgitate half-truths, slander, and outright lies.
Bottomline: in most ages 'intellectuals' serve the powerful. In many cases their will to please the master is so great that they don't even question the faulty premises upon which their shakey/flakey arguements rest. And if there are falsehoods,they will not be questioned, anayzed or revised.
Look no further than the Iraq war to confirm the above generalizations.
Reading Noam Chomsky's and most intellectuals facilitate their shakey/flakey arguements to please their empire, master compradors, capitalists, and all the parasitic lackies (like Petkoff) that fall in the rule of economic/social elites. or between.
Bottomline: Look no further than the generalizations above my comment to consume and regurgitate half-truths, slander, and outright lies.
LOL gringo loco, you are a cliche andante, aren't you? LOL Quite the Mr. Self-Righteous.
Jeje, seriamente, thankfully we have this and other serious blogs (like Bugs's) telling the truth of Venezuela to the world. Gringo Loco can provide the enterteinment.
ROB--if you would have addressed the major point that I advanced in that post it would have been helpful.
However, you are reduced to engaging diatribes and half-truths--safely outside of the burden of developing sustained arguments.
This falls into the same topic about intellectuals and hierarchies of power--they are protected from scrutiny by dint of their service to the master. The master doesn't need to answer for his actions, he just acts--and then lets the intellecuals (whores with laptops) develop hatched-together, faulty logic to ensure us all that without the master (capitalism) humans would be helpless.
Much of the 'higher' education system works to instill in the mind of the parasite class that they are 'intelligent', 'logical', etc.
When all can see the emporer's nakeness--all those that suffer the burden of the empire's greed, that is.
But suffice it to say ROB, that the gist of the idea was compelling enough to coax you from your silence, your mutual masterbation session with rightwing opposition people in blogs that allow no opposing opinion.
That is quite a compliment, ROB.
We are doing something 'right' here, but definately not rightwing (read: 'whitewing') LOL
"mutual masterbation session"
LOL gringo loco you naughty boy!
You are a kinky wasp, you. Please take this as a compliment LOL
I take offense to dumping this woman into the intelectualist camp, being good at writing in no way makes you one, if anything just by reading her work you can see the level of self-deception she enjoys simply because she choses to ignore the other side, chosing ignorance is not an intellectual trait.
A well reasoned, informed, and thought out critique might actually be helpfull in this day and age, too bad that we live in the age of crappy media.
Carefull there, Flanker, with the critical thinking. Remember to rendirle pleitesia to the gringo loco from time to time in these comments sections.
Otherwise he might be branding you as a capitalist, comprador, empire parasitic lackies (like GP) that fall inbetween, who willfully consume and regurgitate half-truths, slander, and outright lies.
part of the 'whitewing' opposition, pues. LOL. Thx.
Do you read spanish gringo loco?
http://www.noticierodigital.com/...pic.php?
t=11956
Are you going to distort the claims of this VENEZUELAN person, Piedraroja, as a lackey of the CIA or part of the "whitewing" opposition?
BTW the link is pertinent in the topic of an independent media debate we are having here in these comments sections.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...99145900/
#13635
Stevie!....come out and plaa-ay!
LOL
"Que el grupo Capriles (Ultimas Noticias) que consiguio colcarse bien como Socio-listo de la revolución,"
Yeah, they actuall know how to report news. I have an upcoming post on this.
"I take offense to dumping this woman into the intelectualist camp, being good at writing in no way makes you one, if anything just by reading her work you can see the level of self-deception she enjoys simply because she choses to ignore the other side, chosing ignorance is not an intellectual trait.
A well reasoned, informed, and thought out critique might actually be helpfull in this day and age, too bad that we live in the age of crappy media."
Agreed. I jut don't get why they keep her around. Reading contrarian views is all well and good. Its important to read them. But I want informative and well reasoned ones. At the very least they should bring back Carlos Ball. At least he knows a thing or two about Venezuela.
"Otherwise he might be branding you as a capitalist, comprador, empire parasitic lackies (like GP) that fall inbetween, who willfully consume and regurgitate half-truths, slander, and outright lies."
Well that would not be the worst branding of my life, if it means anything, I'll try to stay out of personal disputes.
There is a major problem with today's media, it no longer wishes to be precise AND accurate. Part of the fault lays with the audience
In the US if you pretend to be impartial the public hates it, the current rage is openly biased opinion rather than journalism (Rush, Hanity, Franken etc). However if you wish to maintain a level of impartiality you have to always go around proving it, that is why there is no attempt at precision just simple accuracy, if anybody accuses you of bias for attacking x you disprove it by pointing out where&when you attacked y. The crossfire syndrome is born, even O'Reilly follows this path.
In the end that is not true journalism either. The problem is that fanatics never give the benefit of the doubt to whomever so much as disagrees with them.
Commenting by HaloScan
