Noam Chomsky sobre EUA, Sin optimismo

Publicado en La Nación, diario de Argentina, el 23 de Julio, 2008.

En perfecto español.

Dos citas, para los interesados:

Las encuestas sugieren que si Estados Unidos e Irán fueran sociedades democráticas, en las que la opinión pública fuera un factor significativo a la hora de definir políticas de acción, la tan peligrosa confrontación entre Estados Unidos e Irán podría ser resuelta pacíficamente. Las perspectivas, sin embargo, parecen remotas

Obama es considerado más moderado y se sugiere que probablemente vaya a estar abierto a cambios en la política de su país si La Habana da pasos hacia la apertura y la democracia, una postura que podría parecer promisoria a un observador venido de Marte que ignora los antecedentes de Washington, sobre su pasado y presente, con respecto al apoyo a regímenes tiránicos.

SCHIJMAN: Tras el triunfo de Obama en las internas demócratas y desde un análisis de la cuestión racial en particular, ¿a quién cree que irán los votos de Clinton?

CHOMSKY: La elección señaló que Estados Unidos ha alcanzado un nivel de civilización en el cual el poder político no está restringido a hombres blancos. Sin embargo, en este momento las encuestas indican que un número considerable de demócratas registrados no votará por Obama. En parte, principalmente en el Sur, es una cuestión de racismo apenas disfrazado. Es probable que algún segmento de los partidarios de Clinton sienta amargura por el devenir de la campaña, y por el rol del sexismo latente. Por lo tanto, puede que muchos no participen de la elección o que incluso voten por McCain.

SCHIJMAN: En términos de posibilidades de éxito, ¿es Obama el mejor contendiente para McCain?

CHOMSKY: Difícil de evaluar. Sospecho que el resultado será determinado en gran parte por la efectividad de la formidable maquinaria difamatoria republicana. Clinton ha pasado ya años de feroces ataques personales, y como consecuencia posee un alto nivel de impopularidad. Obama tiene que enfrentar un racismo latente, además de la propaganda que se le hace con ser musulmán.

SCHIJMAN: ¿Cree que Clinton será la compañera de fórmula de Obama?

CHOMSKY: Lo dudo. Sospecho que su campaña escogerá alguien con credenciales militares.

SCHIJMAN: ¿Cuál es el sentimiento de la sociedad hacia la clase política?

CHOMSKY: El ochenta por ciento del público cree que el país es manejado por "unos pocos grandes intereses" y no en beneficio de la población. El 95 por ciento cree que el gobierno debería prestar atención a la opinión pública, una posición explícitamente rechazada por el gobierno de Bush, pero deberíamos tener en cuenta que gran parte de la misma postura es adoptada por diversos teóricos progresistas de la democracia, quienes han argumentado en detalle que el público debe ser a lo sumo "espectador", sin "partícipar de la acción". Si la sociedad acepta su asignado papel como observadora pasiva, hay pocas razones para que la política cambie. Pero este resultado no está grabado en piedra, y si el público se torna energético y activo, como ha sucedido con frecuencia en el pasado, y sucede en otras latitudes, entonces los funcionarios electos tendrán que reaccionar de algún modo.

SCHIJMAN: De acuerdo a las encuestas, es muy probable que el próximo presidente norteamericano sea un demócrata. En ese caso, ¿cuáles serán las diferencias sustanciales en materia de política exterior?

CHOMSKY: La administración de Bush está al extremo de un espectro político bastante estrecho. Su agresividad nacionalista y radical ha sido tan extrema que muy rápidamente recibió críticas sin precedente por parte de los círculos principales del establishment. En estos, como en otros asuntos de relevancia, ambos partidos políticos están bien a la derecha de la población general, elemento este último del serio "déficit democrático" en Estados Unidos. No sabemos realmente qué va a suceder, sólo podemos especular. La explicación tiene que ver con la forma en que las elecciones están diseñadas. Los temas son típicamente marginados, lo que refleja una profunda aversión por la democracia y el temor por sus consecuencias por parte de la elite y la dirigencia en general.

SCHIJMAN: ¿Podría cambiar la posición norteamericana en torno al conflicto en Medio Oriente?

CHOMSKY: En el asunto Israel-Palestina, los candidatos tampoco han proporcionado razón alguna como para aguardar algún cambio constructivo. Obama, el candidato del "cambio" y la "esperanza", declara en su sitio web que "apoya fuertemente la relación entre Estados Unidos e Israel, considera que nuestro primer e indiscutible compromiso en Medio Oriente debe atender a la seguridad de Israel, el aliado más fuerte de Estados Unidos en Medio Oriente". Debe de haber querido significar "aliado íntimo", pero tomando las palabras literalmente, Israel es efectivamente el "aliado más fuerte". Claramente, son los palestinos quienes enfrentan el problema de seguridad más grave de la región; de hecho, enfrentan un problema de supervivencia. Es improbable que las políticas cambien considerablemente.

SCHIJMAN: ¿Y con respecto a Irak?

CHOMSKY: Es importante tener en cuenta que ni Obama ni ningún precandidato demócrata ha expresado una oposición de principios a la invasión. Por esto quiero decir el tipo de objeción que se expresó universalmente cuando los rusos invadieron Afganistán o cuando Saddam Hussein invadió Kuwait: la condena sobre la base de la postura de que el ataque es un crimen.

Asimismo, hubo una condena universal a las atrocidades cometidas por los rusos en Chechenia. El crimen no es mitigado por el hecho de que las medidas brutales de Vladimir Putin parecen haber tenido éxito en la restauración del orden. Nadie aplaude a Putin por el gran logro. La crítica de la guerra de Irak, por el contrario, está basada en costos y fracasos; lo que se denomina "razones pragmáticas", una posición que es considerada obstinada, seria, moderada, en el caso de crímenes occidentales. Si el general Petraeus pudiera aproximarse a los éxitos de Putin en Chechenia, probablemente sería coronado rey.

No es fácil encontrar razones sustanciales para esperar cambios significativos, gane quien gane, aunque es probable que haya un reblandecimiento de la posición extremista de Bush-Cheney (y probablemente de McCain). Obama es considerado el más moderado de los dos candidatos restantes, y su slogan principal es "cambio". Así que atengámonos a él.

SCHIJMAN: ¿Qué expectativas tiene en torno al conflicto con Irán?

CHOMSKY: Obama exige más disposición para negociar, pero dentro de las restricciones doctrinales corrientes. Su posición pública es que "ofrecerá incentivos económicos y una posible promesa de no pretender ´cambio de régimen si Irán deja de entrometerse en Irak, de ´actuar irresponsablemente al apoyar a grupos militantes chiitas allí y coopera en asuntos nucleares y otros relacionados con el terrorismo".

Como todos los otros candidatos viables, Obama ha insistido a lo largo de la campaña electoral en que Estados Unidos debe amenazar a Irán con un posible ataque (la frase corriente es: "mantener todas las opciones abiertas"), una violación a la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, si a alguien le importa. Los candidatos tienen la oposición de las tres cuartas partes del público en esta cuestión.

La opinión norteamericana e iraní sobre la cuestión central de la política nuclear ha sido cuidadosamente estudiada. En ambos países, una gran mayoría sostiene que Irán debería tener los derechos de cualquier signatario del Tratado de No Proliferación: desarrollar energía nuclear pero no armas nucleares. La misma gran mayoría está a favor del establecimiento de una "zona nuclear-armamentística libre en Medio Oriente que incluiría a países islámicos e Israel". Más del 80 por ciento del pueblo norteamericano está a favor de la eliminación de armas nucleares en conjunto. Y seguramente los iraníes coinciden con los norteamericanos en que Washington debería poner punto final a sus amenazas militares y desplegar relaciones normales. En un foro de 2007, en Washington, cuando las encuestas fueron publicadas, Joseph Cirincione, vicepresidente senior para la Seguridad Nacional y Política Internacional del Centro para el Progreso Americano (y asesor de Obama), dijo que los sondeos reflejaban "el sentido común tanto de los norteamericanos como de los iraníes, [quienes] parecían ser capaces de superar la retórica de sus propios líderes para encontrar soluciones de sentido común a algunas de las cuestiones más cruciales".

Las encuestas sugieren que si Estados Unidos e Irán fueran sociedades democráticas, en las que la opinión pública fuera un factor significativo a la hora de definir políticas de acción, la tan peligrosa confrontación entre Estados Unidos e Irán podría ser resuelta pacíficamente. Las perspectivas, sin embargo, parecen remotas.

SCHIJMAN: ¿Y qué cree que hará el próximo presidente en relación a Cuba?

CHOMSKY: Este es un caso que presenta cierta similitud al de Irán; dos tercios de la sociedad norteamericana están a favor de entablar relaciones diplomáticas con Cuba, como ha sido desde que los sondeos comenzaron a realizarse 30 años atrás. Pero, como en el pasado, todos los candidatos rechazan esa opción e insisten en que Estados Unidos debe continuar sus esfuerzos para estrangular económicamente a Cuba, en un soberbio aislacionismo, respaldado sólo por Israel y alguna ocasional isla del Pacífico. En ese sentido, Obama es considerado más moderado y se sugiere que probablemente vaya a estar abierto a cambios en la política de su país si La Habana da pasos hacia la apertura y la democracia, una postura que podría parecer promisoria a un observador venido de Marte que ignora los antecedentes de Washington, sobre su pasado y presente, con respecto al apoyo a regímenes tiránicos.

SCHIJMAN: ¿Cómo imagina que será la relación entre Estados Unidos e Israel con el próximo mandatario?

CHOMSKY: La página en Internet de Obama lo presenta como un superhalcón sobre Israel. "Cree que el derecho de Israel a existir como Estado judío nunca debería ser desafiado." No consta que también demande que el derecho de países de existir como Estados musulmanes (cristianos, blancos) "nunca debería ser desafiado". Durante la guerra del Líbano de 2006, "Obama salió fuertemente en defensa del derecho de Israel a defenderse de incursiones y ataques por parte de Hezbollah", pero no tuvo nada que decir sobre el derecho del Líbano a defenderse de la agresión israelí apoyada por Estados Unidos, que mató a más de 1000 personas y destruyó la mayor parte del país.

SCHIJMAN: ¿Lo de Betancourt no está del todo claro?

CHOMSKY: Hay muchas dudas con la liberación de los rehenes. Parece probable que el gobierno norteamericano, que según todos los informes sabía los pasos con anticipación, haya notificado a McCain de manera que éste pudiera sacar algún provecho político. Ninguno de los dos candidatos ha tenido mucho que decir sobre América latina en general, ni sobre Colombia en particular. Mucho de lo sucedido permanece aún oscuro. Ni siquiera está del todo claro si se trató de un rescate. Sí existe coincidencia general en que el gobierno de Estados Unidos conocía los detalles por adelantado. Y es altamente probable que McCain estuviera informado, y que su visita a Colombia estuviera planeada para ganar capital político.

Faithful newborn

This one comes thanks to Friendly Atheist. The news article is here. I put my comment with FA, but as it looks like a long winded speech of sorts, I'll post the thing here.

Dr Olivera Petrovich, expert on psychology of religion told in a conference at Sydney that even preschool children constructed theological concepts as part of their understanding of the physical world.

Petrovich: … I’ve also established that children’s natural concepts of God aren’t purely anthropomorphic. They certainly acquire a conception of God-as-man through their religious education, but no child actually links the representation of, for example, God-as-Jesus with the creator of the world. Rather, their images of God the creator correspond to abstract notions like gas, air, and person without a body. When you press them, they of course fall back on what they’ve been told, saying things like, “I know he’s a man because I saw him on the telly,” or “He’s just like my daddy.” These are very rational responses, but they’re not natural conceptions formed by children. Rather they’re imposed by the culture in which the children live.

Funny thing, is that this particular expert used forced options for specific questions so she is biasing the possible answers. We can find out that here, in an interview:

On forced choice questions, consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly go for the word "God," instead of either an agnostic response (e.g., "nobody knows") or an incorrect response (e.g., "by people").

Mmm... so there was not an I don't know option. Just nobody, god-did-it, or people. Odd to me. More, if taken into account that she is, by default, studing children's spirituality, not their metaphysical conceptions. Because, the first means you assume as real the spiritual world. The second, you don't mind if it real or not, you just want to study the ideas around spiritual matters.

I’m interested in children’s spirituality as it develops in their encounter with the physical world, not through the teaching they may receive in bible classes and so on. I’m not at all looking at the cultural transmission of spirituality.

Do you want a humble opinion from a psychologist?

As the mind develops, more complex models of how things work develop in the mind of the child. Jean Piaget, father of the psychogenetics found that at certain age the child is more likely to answer to a problem in a given way, because his mind is uncapable of developing a more complex way of solving the problem.

And with explanations about things goes the same. It’s almost as if the genesis of thought mimicked the biological genesis: as an embyro shows the genetic ancestry of millions of years of evolution in the months it takes to fully develop into a human, the ideas about the world show the progressively more complex understanding of our world as humanity.

A very young kid may tell you the world is flat. And that wind is a spirit blowing air. And things fall because they like earth, but you could end up falling up sometimes.

As age progresses, the complexity of the models about reality also improves to be able to include other problems the previous model didn’t answer.

Then, I wounldn’t be surprised if suddently somebody found out that some sort of god is in the children’s idea of How World Works. Probably younger kids belive on pantheism (ever seen a little kid hitting a toy because the toy denies to do something he wants it to do, as if trying to compell the thing into motion?) and that later this evolves.

So… maybe atheism isn’t the natural state, as it requires understanding things in complex systems. But that would not give any religion a boost, save patheism, and that’s a maybe.

Sunday Quote: Bart Simpson

"Dear God. We paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing."

- Bart Simpson saying grace on The Simpsons

"Querido Dios. Pagamos por todas las cosas, así que gracias por nada."

- Bart Simpson, dando las gracias en Los Simpsons

Zeitgeist the Movie. Final Ed. (Subtitulos en español)

This one is a must, even if long. And as on many of these movies, people may not like some parts, but different themes are covered chapters of sorts. So if you don't like something, doesn't mean other parts will be equally disturbing.

Comic Friday Special: PhD

This is a very particular webcomic: One about postgrad students! yeah!
And most of the time, other people get the idea, too. I belive you can saw it better if you click on the image, or you can (I recommend) go directly to the PhD comic.

Evolution Special: Flatfish's eyes and Primate's brains

There are two recent stories I want to share with you. First the briefing, then the long stories.

First. There are primates in both America and Eurasia and Africa. Well, it seems that the past primates had smaller brains than the present ones, and slowly they have evolved into the present size of brains. That's no news. What is new is that evidence proves that evolution to a bigger brain has happened two times: one in the Old World, the other in the New World.

Second. Flatfish are this little fish flattened, that ussualy are found on seafloor. The difference with other fish is that they have two eyes on the same side of the skull, making it asymmetrical. Creationists love it because it is such a complex and sudden change from usual symmetry, that it requires the hand of God to exist. Well, not anymore.


Let's start with the primates. Here is the full story.

This is almost like proving in a laboratory with two different samples that a specific genetic trait has a tendency to appear more than once, as said trait improves survival of the species in question

The result is clear: early fossil members of both the New World and Old World anthropoid lineages had small brain sizes, thus the larger brain sizes seen in both groups today must have arisen independently

Eric Delson, the Chair of Anthropology at Lehman College, City University of New York and a Research Associate at the Museum says:

This work confirms that brain size increase may be one of the common characteristics of all primates

Now let's see the Flatfish story.Here is the full story.

Matt Friedman, graduate student in the Committee on Evolutionary Biology at the University of Chicago and a member of the Department of Geology at the Field Museum, draws attention to several examples of such transitional forms that he uncovered in museum collections of underwater fossilized creatures from the Eocene epoch--about 50 million years ago.

Specifically, the eye migration is in the middle of the road in these fossils. The eye has not crossed over to the other side of the fish. It's in the middle of the road. Thanks to that, Darwin's original hypothesis (Lamarckian adaptation involved, which later was discovered that does not work) or Goldschmidt's (the "hopeful monster", sudden mutation hypothesis) are no longer necesary.


So there you go. Two stories in one post, and 2 more nails in ID's coffin.

An honest and humble theist.

This comes as I just read Recursivity blog. I... just can't keep from posting it here:

"Christians ought to remember that normal, thinking people do not automatically see the sense in their claims. Indeed believers ought to be a minority. Even Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians. "but we preach Christ crucified: ...foolishness to Gentiles". This stuff is supposed to sound crazy to you guys. After all, we Catholics believe that if we eat the flesh and blood of a Jewish zombie who died 2000 years ago, our invisible friend in the sky will save us from death. :) Faith does not come "naturally"; that is why we call it a "gift". We should hardly be surprised when a number of people say, "no thank you, that sounds ridiculous." It seems to me that Christians should be a lot more humble about our truth claims and a whole heckuva lot more charitable to people who don't take them up."

David Seljak - Professor at St. Jerome's University, a Catholic college affiliated with the University of Waterloo.

Sharing religion with your son... a constitutional issue

For all religious types out there: know that if you marry an atheist you problably won't have the issues of this family. It seems the woman is Catholic, and the man is Satanist. They both have children, and she wants her kids to go to mass during the weekends that technically to be spent in company of the father.

Kristie Meyer has cited the religious beliefs of her former husband, Jamie, as the main reason why an Indiana judge should restrict his visitation rights.

Not fun enough yet?

Legal experts said that the US Constitution prevents judges from showing a religious preference, and that applies even if a religion's name is Satanism. After all, that is a registered religion registered with the IRS.

On one hand, they say that Mr Meyer may require to prove Satanism is a real faith, which I do not really consider that hard. I mean, they have a registered religion of vampires, one of UFOs, and they keep thinking that either atheism or science is a religion. And well, on the other hand, Mrs. Meyer must show that Satanism is harmful for the upbringing of her daughter... and I hope they do not refer to her immortal soul, because that would be a mootless point. From the little that appears on the news article it looks like Mr Meyer is practicant of LaVeyan Satanism

... Satanism, which (Mr Meyer) says is about celebrating man's desires rather than worshipping the devil...

And if that's the case, well... it might be more stated that said religion might benefit the daughter: it does not literally worship Satan, but rather uses Satan as a symbol for people's natural inner desires, emphasizing atheism. With sins like stupidity, self-deceit, conformity, pretentiousness, lack of perspective, and counterproductive pride, it doesn't sound too bad.

But of course, that's not what Mrs. Meyer says. Or Roberts, her lawyer:

"Frankly, (it) can be emotionally damaging or confusing to children when they're faced with these two different forms of worship," Mr Roberts told the Chicago Tribune.
"Let's call it worship rather than religion. Religion is based upon recognition of a supreme being."

Mmm... so now Buddhism wouldn't be a religion, since you can be Buddhist and not belive in a supreme being. Also, if you're Hindu your rights may not be protected if you come from Samkhya and the Mimamsa schools of Hindu philosophy. Or if you practice certain types of Paganism, Jainism, or Taoism.

Let's see where this all goes.

Religious Docs do not really care for the poor.

Yup. I dunno why it doesn't surprise me, but it seems now like being religious and medical doctor, is not enough to help the poorest clients. The article is one year old, but as always it's a good one. Read it full here.

Acording to a study, it's the non-religious medics and doctors the ones more inclined to help the poor and the pople in need.

In the July/August issue of the Annals of Family Medicine, researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital report that 31 percent of physicians who were more religious — as measured by “intrinsic religiosity” as well as frequency of attendance at religious services — practiced among the underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their religion as atheist, agnostic or none.

It's a small difference, but it's something. It either tells us there is no real distintion, or at the very best it means atheists and non religious are more humanitarian.

To find out which religious, spiritual and personal factors were most often present in doctors who care for the underserved, Curlin and colleagues surveyed 1,820 practicing physicians from all specialties; 1,144 (63%) responded.

Something more intresting, though: spirituality (independently from religious beliefs or dogma) was indicative of service to the poor. A big influence:

Curlin and colleagues also noted that those who identified themselves as very spiritual, whether or not they were religious, were roughly twice as likely to care for the underserved as those who described their spirituality as low.

So now you see: be spiritual, care for others. And to hell with gods, as they are pretty much may take care of themselves, unlike poor people.a

Tortura gringa: Waterboarding

Pues... Lástima que no existe un infierno a donde vayan a dar los jijos de su... que dicen que ESO no es tortura.
Una razón mas para jamás pisar suelo estadounidense.



I'm sorry for my friends that may live or travel to the USA. I will definitely never ever do so, at least while people who condone torture like that are in power, run rampatn, and take decisions. Because the simple act of going to the USA puts my life in danger of racism, of those who think all latin american are trash, of christian fundamentalists, of imaginary terrorists attacks and the steps taken agaist them, of the "forces of justice" who blindly follow orders from above and may or may not be decent people themselves.

Fear the new Holy Army of the Gringo God

It seems now that thew US goverment, and their army are turning themselves into the 21th century templars of sorts: with militar bases all around the world, countries owing money to the US, and an implacable will to do everything in their power to impose their view of the world on the er... world...

And now it seems they are turning into a Christian organization. This is directly from CNN: A religious soldier turned atheist had to be sent home for his lack of faith after several years in Iraq, when he started doubting of his faith.

His sudden lack of faith, he said, cost him his military career and put his life at risk. Hall said his life was threatened by other troops and the military assigned a full-time bodyguard to protect him out of fear for his safety.

In March, Hall filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, among others. In the suit, Hall claims his rights to religious freedom under the First Amendment were violated and suggests that the United States military has become a Christian organization.

He is suing and Michael Weinstein, a retired senior Air Force officer and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is suing along. The Pentagon? they claim not to know anything

The Pentagon refused to discuss specifics of Hall's case -- citing the litigation. But Deputy Undersecretary Bill Carr said complaints of evangelizing are "relatively rare." He also said the Pentagon is not pushing one faith among troops.

"If an atheist chose to follow their convictions, absolutely that's acceptable," said Carr. "And that's a point of religious accommodation in department policy, one may hold whatever faith, or may hold no faith."

What do you think? If you need more background, read the full story here

About acting trough miracles... and normal thinking

My dad always says there are two ways to do things on this life.

The normal, and the miraculous.

The normal involves calling for God or Virgin Mary to help.

The miraculous, is to do things by one-self.

If you want to look for the opposite use of the same idea to tell more or less the same thing read this:

In Germany you are required to register in each town you live in.

One of the things they ask you is your religion.

They asked my boyfriend, and he told them he was atheist.

The woman wrote "VD", and he asked, "What does that stand for?"

She replied "verschieden denkend", which means different thinking.

"No," he said, "normal denkend" (normal thinking).

thanks to The Amiable Atheist

News about freedom of speech don't get old

Normally I do not post the full news article, but in this case, I can't find the original url, so I will post the full text, and link to the sources here. If you are from the US, you will be truly surprised about what is printed next. If you come from Latin America, maybe you will, but probably not so much.

Corporate Media Outraged: Venezuela Expands Free Speech
Stuart Munckton
Green Left Weekly (radical newspaper)
New South Wales, Australia
June 6, 2007

The newly sworn-in president of the new television channel TVes, journalist Lil Rodriguez, delivers a speech after the inauguration of the board of directors of the channel on May 21. (Photo: Juan Barreto / AFP-Getty Images)

Venezuela has been facing the most sustained campaign of destabilization, including a barrage of media lies internationally and violent riots inside Venezuela, since the last serious attempt to overthrow the left-wing government of Hugo Chavez in 2004.

On May 27, the 20-year concession to broadcast over the state-owned Channel 2 airwave, which had been granted to multi-millionaire Marcel Granier's RCTV, expired. The Chavez government made the decision, in accordance with laws established by a pre-Chavez government, not to renew RCTV's concession, but instead to use the channel to establish a new public TV station, Venezuelan Social Television (TVes).

The new channel, which began broadcasting just after midnight on May 27, has been set up via a loan from a state-run bank. However, it will quickly be required to become self-funded. The government will have no say over the content of the new station, which will purchase programs made by independent producers.

RCTV will be able to continue broadcasting via satellite or cable, and station heads have indicated they intend to do so. In case the station uses the non-renewal of its concession as an excuse to lay off workers, the Venezuelan government has guaranteed all of RCTV's work force jobs at the newly created station.

The government has explained that its decision is a direct result of RCTV's repeated violations of the law. RCTV has been responsible for more than 600 violations of Venezuela's broadcasting law, including regularly broadcasting pornography, and has refused to pay fines for such infractions. It has also been accused of non-payment of taxes. The station has been strongly criticized for rarely allowing on air Venezuelans of indigenous or African heritage, even though they are the majority of Venezuela's population.

The government has singled out RCTV's role in helping organize the April 2002 United States-backed military coup that overthrew the elected Chavez government, which was subsequently restored by a popular uprising of the poor, as the key factor behind the non-renewal. During their time in power, the coup leaders publicly thanked RCTV for its assistance.

These facts have become twisted beyond recognition in a campaign by the corporate media that is part of a drive to paint the Chavez government as moving toward a dictatorship, even though pro-Chavez forces have won 11 straight national elections and Chavez was re-elected in December with the largest number of votes in Venezuelan history.

The campaign has been based on constant reporting of lies as fact, most significantly the claim made by RCTV and United States-funded opposition groups that RCTV has been "closed," even though it is being allowed to continue broadcasting.

On May 21, CNN stated that RCTV "is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chavez, not a big fan of It." The Melbourne Age joined the chorus on May 29 with an article under the false headline "Chavez Cuts Off Station to Silence Dissent." A May 26 BBC Online article claiming Chavez had defended his "right to silence the channel" has Chavez defending something he hasn't done in words he hasn't used!

The corporate media have ignored the fact that 79 out of 81 TV stations, 706 out of 708 radio stations and all newspapers in Venezuela are privately owned, and that the majority of the private media are virulently anti-Chavez. Since Chavez was elected in 1998, only two TV stations have been closed: the state-run Channel 8 during the coup by the coup leaders, and community TV station Catia TV in July 2002 by then-Caracas mayor and coup leader Alfredo Pena.

Freedom of speech has been extended under the Chavez government. Just after Chavez came to power, he passed a law that allowed the entire population the right to use the nation's airwaves. This legalized a large number of previously illegal "pirate" radio stations, the type of stations that are still illegal in the United States. The government has actively promoted community media, especially radio, which has blossomed in recent years. TVes aims to provide a space to the growing movement of independent media producers.

What none of the critics have been able to answer is: which other government in the world would renew the license of a station that actively participated in a coup against the legitimate government? The tolerance of the Chavez government toward the private media involved in the coup is remarkable. The government has not attempted to shut down RCTV or jail its owners, or even cancel its license, although it had a strong legal case to do so. Instead, it allowed the license to run out its term, then chose to grant the concession to someone else. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting released a statement that was posted on Venezuelanalysis.com on May 25 strongly criticizing the corporate media, claiming, "It is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for five years after the coup."

The government says it is seeking to "democratize" the media, so that those who were previously excluded can have a voice. An article by George Ciccariello Maher posted on Venezuelanalysis.com on May 29 pointed out that 80 percent of all messages, information and media content produced in Venezuela are controlled by either Granier or billionaire Gustavo Cisneros, who owns Venevision. Both are married to granddaughters of William H. Phelps Jr. — the founder of 1BC corporation, which runs RCTV. Leading 1BC shareholders include direct descendants of Phelps. Cisneros is also one of the richest men in Latin America, owning a range of industries in Venezuela and across the region.

In light of these facts, the only possible justification for renewing RCTV's concession is that Granier and his oligarchic mates who own 1BC have some sort of automatic right to use it forever, regardless of how they abuse the privilege. To renew the license would have sent the message that the likes of Granier, by virtue of their extreme wealth, can break the law with impunity, work to overthrow elected governments and refuse to pay taxes, and they will be rewarded with a renewal of their concession. And by implication, that the majority of Venezuelans, whose access to media is being increased, do not have the same right.

At the heart of the campaign over the media in Venezuela is the Bolivarian revolution being led by the Chavez government, which is redistributing the nation's wealth and breaking the economic and political power of the oligarchy. This revolutionary process is increasingly empowering the working people and the poor through participatory democracy. The democratization of the media is a crucial part of this campaign. In keeping with its profoundly democratic nature, the revolution has sought to break the media monopoly — not by silencing the rich minority who exercise the monopoly, but by countering it with an explosion of new media run by the previously voiceless.

All attempts to stop this peaceful and democratic revolution have failed, and the opposition is growing desperate. Despite going all out to organize the "mother of all demonstrations" on May 26 against the non-renewal of RCTV's concession, Ciccariello Maher reports that footage of the protests screened on the state-owned VTV channel revealed that it failed to fill more than half a city block, suggesting less than 10,000 people were present. The corporate media duly reported "tens of Thousands." Ciccariello Maher points out that the corporate media internationally have ignored the much larger demonstrations in favor of the government's decision, often occurring spontaneously. A huge fiesta was organized on the evening of May 26 to celebrate the opening of the new channel.

Having failed to mobilize significant numbers, the opposition then resorted to violence, with some among the protesters on May 26 opening fire on police without provocation, injuring 11 officers. In the days following the May 27 deadline, students from the wealthy universities, which remain strongholds of the elite, took to the streets, burning tires and garbage in order to block traffic, while attacking police with rocks. The inevitable images of police forcibly clearing the streets has given the corporate media more images to present out of context, implying an increasingly authoritarian regime in Venezuela cracking down on dissent. Yet the corporate media ignored students from the Bolivarian University — created by the Chavez government to provide free education to the poor excluded from the old universities — who marched off campus on May 29 according to a Bolivarian News Agency report, in a show of support for the RCTV decision.

On June 2, Aporrea.org reported that Avenida Bolivar in central Caracas was completely filled by a "red tide" of people from across the country who took part in a massive demonstration to reject opposition violence and support the government's stance.

The Venezuelan government believes that behind the RCTV campaign is a new plot to destabilize the country in order to undermine the Chavez government, isolate it internationally, and lay the groundwork for its overthrow and for the reversal of the gains made by the revolution by whatever means possible. Venezuelanalysis.org reported on May 31 that a statement was issued the previous day by more than 600 organizations, "including communal councils, political movements, collectives, community media, and cooperatives" supporting the government's decision on RCTV's license and describing the opposition protests as part of an "imperial strategy." The statement began: "The Venezuelan people forcefully reject the interference of the United States government in the internal affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Once again the C.I.A. has put a destabilization plan in place with the objective of overthrowing the Bolivarian government and of assassinating President Hugo Chavez."

The government has responded to the local and international corporate media campaign by announcing that the attorney general's office would begin an investigation into the coverage of CNN and Venezueland station Globovision. The government is upset that a Spanish broadcast by CNN screened footage of a protest in Mexico while claiming it was a protest against the RCTV decision inside Venezuela, and that CNN recently showed an image of Chavez alongside an image of an assassinated Al Qaeda leader. The government claims Globovision intended to potentially incite Chavez's assassination when it followed an interview with Granier with the images of the failed assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II, while a song with the lyrics "Have faith, for it doesn't end here" played over the top.

Venezuela is home to the world's largest reserves of oil, in the Orinoco Belt. On May 1, the Chavez government nationalized investments of six American and European oil corporations. As the lead-up to the United States-led invasion of Iraq revealed, when oil profits are at stake, the corporate media appear prepared to regurgitate whatever rubbish they are fed by the Bush administration and its allies. The much-vaunted "attack on freedom of expression" supposedly underway in Venezuela, in reality exists in the same places as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction — inside the minds of the United States State Department.

The Bible Unearthed, part 1.

Vean el programa completo, se los recomiendo.