End-of-the-world-as-we-know-it Chronicles

Posted on July 2, 2011 by

Read it and weep.  (Over the Afiuni case, no less!)

HT: GDNM

About Francisco Toro

writing about the compounding state of insanity that is Venezuela under Chávez since 1999.
This entry was posted in International chavistas. Bookmark the permalink.

103 Responses to End-of-the-world-as-we-know-it Chronicles

  1. Maracaiburgh says:
    July 2, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    Scrambling for credibility before the roof collapses?

  2. wlad says:
    July 2, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    A moment of clarity among the fog of senility? The usual toadies that would have spun it for him were on vacation? Who knows? It almost always takes way too long for these people to recant their support. Emma Goldman was over the bolsheviks almost from the beginning. This one took over a decade.

    • Guido says:
      July 2, 2011 at 9:20 pm

      Bertrand Russell was among the first intellectuals to abhor the USSR, in 1920, IIRC

      • wlad says:
        July 2, 2011 at 9:45 pm

        Right, but was he ever as enthusiastic a supporter as Goldman beforehand? (I don’t actually know)

        • Guido says:
          July 2, 2011 at 9:58 pm

          I don’t know, but he was at least close to the Fabians, which were Socialists. Orwell is another case of extreme leftist criticizing harshly a Socialist brutal govt. And you know Orwell was an enthusiastic supporter because he fought the Republican side on the Spanish civil war.
          SO, I am not sure what you mean by “these people” but it’s not certainly the whole left.

          • wlad says:
            July 2, 2011 at 11:54 pm

            by “these people” i don’t mean the whole left, or even the left. i mean ideologues that support people/regimes that run counter to their professed ideals. it could be an anarchist supporting Chavez or a libertarian supporting Theocracy.

            • Guido says:
              July 3, 2011 at 1:47 am

              Thanks for clarifying. One of the things I hate the most from Chávez is the damage it does to legitimate ideas of a more egalitarian society.

  3. Roy says:
    July 2, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    When rats like that start jumping ship, you know the gig is just about up. Let’s see if Sean Penn, et al start running for cover too…

    • wlad says:
      July 2, 2011 at 9:47 pm

      No chamo, there’s always a few rats that jump way early and some that stay till the bitter end. Not to mention all the ones that jump in and out and the ones that later on claim to have never even been on the boat!

  5. wlad says:
    July 2, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    It is so oddly refreshing to see the legion of PSFs in the comments section pipe up about how The Guardian is always biased against the Chavez government. Qué te parece Boyd? :)

    • Alek Boyd says:
      July 3, 2011 at 5:57 am

      Read his second reply of our exchange. Chomsky is the gift that keeps on giving. Lo cojonudo del asunto, is that there are actually people in this world that consider him the foremost intellectual.

      There’s no hope…

      • Manuel says:
        July 3, 2011 at 6:37 am

        Thanks Alek for posting Chomsky’s comments. Very illuminating. To be fair to the guy, I understand his annoyance at The Guardian’s headline – it is slightly misleading. His public letter though is quite strong in closing, “I want Venezuelans to be aware of my total solidarity with judge Afiuni”. I guess he will be ignored by most, but if his statement contributes to changing a few minds about the regime, then it will not be totally useless.

        • Jeffry House says:
          July 3, 2011 at 10:35 am

          He will not be ignored on the international left. His voice is one of the few that matter to them, and this represents a gaping hole in international solidarity.

      • wlad says:
        July 3, 2011 at 10:50 pm

        That was so very telling. He all but tells you that what he cares more for is criticizing the US, not speaking up for human rights/freedom

        • carl says:
          July 4, 2011 at 2:07 am

          Well it’s not like he makes a secret of it… He’s a political thinker from the anarco-syndicalist perspective, not an international arbiter of good and evil.

          • wlad says:
            July 4, 2011 at 4:29 pm

            “not an international arbiter of good and evil.”

            he does present himself like one. in any case, it is how he is viewed by parts of the left. why do you think he was courted by wilpert et al.?

          • Guido says:
            July 4, 2011 at 7:12 pm

            Sorry. As an idealist anarchist (I am naive, I know, but I would really like to try a kibbutz some day) , that argument is crap.

            Being biased and callous to HR issues only weakens your position, makes easier for your enemies to attack you and raises doubts about the kind of system you really want to implement.

  6. Alek Boyd says:
    July 2, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    I couldn’t help myself, from the horses mouth:

    Noam Chomsky on Afiuni: “The Guardian is quite deceptive” http://ow.ly/5vBcD

    • Maracaiburgh says:
      July 2, 2011 at 11:09 pm

      Love how he uses Bradley Manning as an excuse for the US not to criticize the Alfuni case. Ugh…

      • Escualidus Arrechus says:
        July 2, 2011 at 11:49 pm

        He also conveniently forgets that Manning in imprisoned for actually breaking the fucking law. Afiuni was jailed for obeying it.

        I don’t condone the treatment Manning has received while in detention, but the guy’s guilty as sin. Afiuni is not.

        • Guido says:
          July 3, 2011 at 1:45 am

          It’s worse because the US does it. Period.

        • AlanFurth says:
          July 3, 2011 at 9:42 am

          Woah woah woah, hold it right there. You seem to be falling into the same pathetic lesser-evil moral rationalizations you are attacking Chomsky for. Whether Manning broke the law or not is completely besides the point: the real debate should be about whether the concept of safeguarding state secrets has any sound moral grounds whatsoever. A Chavista could very well reply to your fallacious statement with an equally fallacious one: that Cedeño also “broke the fucking law” when he engaged in foreign currency trading.

          • Escualidus Arrechus says:
            July 3, 2011 at 10:20 am

            I did say I don’t condone the harassment Manning suffered, didn’t I? Why, yes I did!

            My point was not that A deserved it while B did not. My point was that Chomsky has no ground to dismiss American criticism of the Afiuni affair because of some perceived moral inferiority. After the outcry over Manning’s treatment, he was moved to a medium-security prison, and allowed to socialize with other inmates. After judge Afiuni released Cedeño, she was jailed. Chomsky’s blinders are on so tightly that he can’t see the forest for the trees, or the trees for the forest, or any form of plant life at all.

            • AlanFurth says:
              July 3, 2011 at 10:42 am

              Your point was that somehow Manning deserves it more than Afiuni because “he broke the fucking law”, so “he is guilty as sin”, while Afiuni is not. Mine was that you should apply the same moral standard to your reasoning than to Chomsky’s. And you still aren’t.

            • Escualidus Arrechus says:
              July 3, 2011 at 12:44 pm

              Please, don’t tell me what my point is or isn’t. You can take issue with my choice of words, and ask me to explain myself, but don’t put words in my mouth. I was attacking Chomsky’s line of reasoning, not championing the use of harassment/torture on Bradley Manning.

            • extorres says:
              July 3, 2011 at 9:52 pm

              AlanFurth, you lost me. Manning broke the law. right? Anyone mistreating Manning breaks the law. right? Cedeño may or may not have broken the law. right? Afiuni followed the law. right? Anyone mistreating Afiuni breaks the law. right?

              In each case, we are referring to laws written by representatives of the people as dictated by the constitution and the laws, also written and approved directly or indirectly by the people. right?

              Chomsky and you seem to defend Manning and Afiuni as if their cases are very similar based on how the governments are treating them, but then wishing those of us who see the differences to feel badly for thinking that possibly Afiuni is a sadder case than Manning’s merely because she was following the law and Manning wasn’t.

              Let me ask you this: A good man and a bad man both get cancer; is it wrong to think it’s worse for the good man to be sick than the bad man?

              Afiuni never thought she was above the law. Her case is worse.

              —

            • carl says:
              July 4, 2011 at 2:16 am

              Torres:

              Equating illegal to bad is worse than naive. Approved indirectly by the people? Really??

              So, in that case, all the legally expropriated capital in Venezuela bears less “badness” or whatever than a pirated movie.

              Following the law… That was the excuse nazi officials used!

            • extorres says:
              July 4, 2011 at 8:52 am

              Carl,

              I didn’t equate illegal with bad; it was an analogy to make a point. Read into it, not just the surface. Note that the point of my comment is regarding AlanFurth’s logic that we should treat the cases and feel for the victims the same, though there are differences, seemingly merely because both victims were wronged. I feel bad for Manning. He should not be a victim. Heck, I am the first to support that prisons and jails should never be used as “punishment” for crimes, only to prevent likely ones from being committed again. But I still see Afiuni’s case as sadder, the same way seeing a child suffer these injustices is even sadder because of level of innocence and naivetee. And there are more reasons, but let me sidetrack a moment.

              “The people” approved the constitution *directly* in a referendum. Laws usually are approved indirectly through legislative representatives. In group voting, even when a vote is not unanimous, it is considered that the *group* voted for or against the final decision. In democracy, it is expected that the the losers consider the government “theirs”, too, after voting. In a healthy democracy, the people also feel that the laws are “theirs”, as well, and that the laws represent the workings of “their” society.

              As to your expropriated capital versus pirated movie analogy, the key word in your statement is “legally”. Note that I think that all of the expropiated capital in Venezuela has been illegal, so I hope you’re not thinking about any of those real situations. But since you did specify “legally expropriated capital”, I’ll answer accordingly: yes, the pirated movie bears more “badness” or whatever than *legal* expropriations.

              “Following the law… That was the excuse nazi officials used!” I disagree, they mostly used the “following orders” excuse. I pointed out above, however, that in healthy democracies the laws indirectly voice “the people”. Would you agree that nazi Germany was not one such “healthy democracy”?

              But I see your point, that “following the law”, that is, the letter of the law, without consideration of the spirit, or even the spirit of those who wrote it is totally whack. So your point is not lost on me, but it does not land on me. Back to Afiuni, It is precisely that Afiuni was not just following the letter of the law, she is jousting for the spirit of it, for one of it’s basic premises. Her case is an example of the whole of government gone rogue against a single citizen whose role in society is to defend the spirit that the government has now possessed.

              So, forgive my personal opinion; to me, this is much sadder. If it’s not to you, it has nothing to do with the quality of morals, or of your being right or wrong, which is what AlanFurth made it seem, and where he lost me. If you’re going to reply, please, don’t take it to the letter of the comment, but its spirit. I feel for Manning, but I feel worse for Afiuni. I think it’s a fair feeling, and AlanFurh’s logic did not change my thoughts on that, neither did yours.

              –

            • AlanFurth says:
              July 4, 2011 at 9:22 pm

              @Extorres:
              to me, both Manning and Afiuni are victims of corrupt, authoritarian regimes (yes, in different ways and different degrees, but BOTH extremely corrupt and authoritarian) who market themselves as anything but, and who make use of laws that go against fundamental human rights to further their interests. Engaging in endless hairsplitting over which case is less unethical seems to me to be absolutely pointless, and driven more by the wishful-thinking attitude of someone trying to rationalize their preferred regime’s actions than any legitimate ethical reason. That sort of rationalizing hair-splitting is what Escualidus and you seem to criticize Chomsky’s pro-Chavez stance, but enthusiastically use exactly the same technique to portray Manning’s case in a sort of rosier light. That’s why I mercilessly dump all of ya in the same moral, and philosophical, garbage can :b

            • extorres says:
              July 5, 2011 at 12:15 am

              AlanFurth,

              Are you claiming that saying that something is less deplorable than another thing is the same as portraying it “in a sort of rosier light”? And are you saying that it is a hair-splitting difference between two cases that in one case the person is guilty of breaking the letter and spirit of a law, and in the other the person is not only innocent, but a dedicated defender of the letter and spirit of the law? Hair-splitting, really?! Rosier, really?! We support Manning on his human rights claims. We just think the conversation was about Afiuni, and Chomsky has his head so far up his rear about USA that he can’t see the Afiuni case for what it is: independent of his personal USA agenda.

              And, again, what I feel about each case, is just that, a feeling. You can’t tell me what to feel. Are you now going to tell me that a Venezuelan citizen can’t feel sadder about human rights violations taking place at home than in a different country? Really?! I repeat, Afiuni’s case is much sadder. It’s not about ethics. Nor hair-splitting. Nor roses. Just sadder.

              –

          • Kepler says:
            July 5, 2011 at 3:59 am

            Alan,
            I also think the one hair-splitting here is you. I agree each crime should be considered on its own “merit” and it is rather silly to be trying to calculate exactly how much worse or better one of those crimes is.

            We are discussing about Venezuela. As extorres said, that judge is even in a worse position as she was just applying the law in all its points, from every perspective, not just doing what was right from an ethical point. Is that nothing to you just because the USA system is this or that?
            And it is natural we are more shocked by the Affiuni case. I feel for the children in Darfur and the whole population in Japan and the Inuit in Tutututu in Northern Canada as much as anyone else, but let’s be honest: it’s not surprising – no matter how much “citoyen du monde” one wants to be, that one feels stronger about issues closer home. That is, whether you want to admit it or not, why you also end up coming up more with US cases, not just because of the US still being a superpower with a very agressive agenda. You are a US American (or at least North American or English speaker) and that is much closer to your world.
            And this person is not only a Venezuelan, from a country we live in or have family in and where we grew up, it is a woman with children who suffers from cancer.
            But I see that in the end some US Americans want to bring us to the front their US topics and be puzzled we focus so much about ours in a blog about Venezuela
            Are We being provincial here? Or someone else?

            • AlanFurth says:
              July 5, 2011 at 10:37 am

              Kepler,

              Afiuni was following the letter and spirit of the law in this case, but would you say her liberating Cedeño would have been any less justified if Venezuelan law dictated that people were guilty until proven innocent? That would have been perfectly equivalent to what Manning did, he broke a law that went against a basic human right: disseminating information about the abuses perpetrated by political actors. Also, I don’t see how all of you don’t even consider whether the laws that served to imprison Manning were valid at all as they go against basic tenets of the US constitution: If Manning’s actions were in line with a higher-order law that conflicts the one he broke, then we cannot say that his actions were illegal, which again puts him in an equivalent position to Afiuni’s from a legal point of view.

              Let me also tell you that I am Venezuelan, criollito de pura cepa mi pana. You guys say that you simply feel stronger about the Afiuni case because you’re Venezuelan and therefore feel less strongly about whatever happens in the US, but quite frankly, what I suspect is that you’re trying to portray Manning’s case in a better light than Afiuni due to “if the US does it, it is less bad” syndrome. If we’re going to talk about the “feelings” that extorres talks about, well, mine is that far from being detached from US issues, you guys are prone to the uncritical US-cheerleading attitude which Chavez so successfully uses to discredit opponents of his regime.

            • Kepler says:
              July 5, 2011 at 11:54 am

              Alan,
              I am known here because of my very views on US policies. I nag about it. I have also commented on the fact Venezuelans from the upper and upper-middle class do tend to copy just about anything they see in the US and they also tend to take the most “gringo” position they think they can take.
              Still, I simply would not like to bring the case of Manning to a discussion about Venezuela in a blog about Venezuela in very much the same way as i would not be bringing the case of Afiuni to a discussion of the US super power and its abuses, just to explain “come on, guys, it is not that bad”.

            • extorres says:
              July 5, 2011 at 12:41 pm

              Alan Furth, you are being dishonest. Ironically, you are doing it in defense of higher-order laws. Dishonest about what? Manning disseminated much more information than what you describe. He put many civilian and military folk in mortal danger, directly and indirectly, and not always for noble reasons: quoting Manning, “If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?” So, you are being dishonest about Manning’s case to make him sound rosier than he is.

              But more to the point of this discussion, the more you dig into Manning’s moral dilemmas in doing the things he chose to do, the less it compares to Afiuni’s situation. She did what she did to prevent the regime’s continued abuse of a citizen. To put it in perspective, I’m sure Manning (as most decent people) would love to have someone like Afiuni preside his court hearings, whereas I doubt Afiuni (nor most decent people) would like having Manning access her email account.

              Besides that, if you’re really so much about higher-order laws, why don’t you talk about any other cases that have more to do with Afiuni’s case than Manning? Why don’t you mention torture cases at the Terrorist Investigation Division at Boosa Prison in Galle, Sri Lanka, for example?

              Regarding “what I suspect is that you’re trying to portray Manning’s case in a better light than Afiuni due to “if the US does it, it is less bad” syndrome.” Not only are your supicions wrong, but you’d have to explain your thinking when to counter all your arguments in this discussion we’ve provided considerable number of rational arguments explaining our position with regard to Afiuni and Manning, none of which are even attempting to defend USA, as opposed to you dealing in misreprentation and suspicion to support yours.

              So stop with Manning already. If you can’t stop talking about him when we’re trying to talk about Afiuni, then you must suffer from the same head up rear syndrome of Chomsky’s.

              –

    • nestor says:
      July 2, 2011 at 11:38 pm

      “…the Manning case for one, which is much worse than Judge Afiuni’s. And much else.”

      Wow, just wow. The nerve this guy has.

    • syd says:
      July 3, 2011 at 7:44 am

      Chomsky the linguist speaks with forked tongue. Sus respuestas son muy enredadas. A propósito.

  7. Jeffry House says:
    July 2, 2011 at 11:20 pm

    Chomsky is right and deserves congratulations. it could have happened sooner, but it is always hardest to turn on those who share your own ideals. This illustrates the difference between Chomsky and, say, Gollinger or the roadies at Venezuelanalysis.

    • Pandora says:
      July 3, 2011 at 1:13 am

      Golinger, like many denying/rallying/sobbing “felicitadores”, is grotesque. Not worth tracking. I find other museum pieces. more worthy of attention and serious concern, in all possible future scenatios. The following sample was posted on Facebook:

      EL CHÁVEZ QUE VENDRÁ

      [… tal como Cristo…

      En cualquier momento regresa Chávez, es oportuno reflexionar su retorno.
      El difícil trance que vivió con la enfermedad lo obligó a ir de nuevo a la soledad del desierto que ya conocía, ha tenido la oportunidad magnífica de la reflexión. Es allí, en el frío de lo yermo, donde el hombre, tal como Cristo, se encuentra con sus demonios, pero también con su Dios. De esos episodios de vivencia íntima se sale fortalecido.
      Los límites de la vida hacen filósofos a los hombres, Chávez fue filósofo, fue niño y padre, se entendió conductor de pueblos, que es más que Comandante y Presidente. Se supo humano y se conoció ungido por la historia. La enfermedad es una desgracia, pero la almohada del enfermo es Universidad de vida.
      Desde su lecho ha conocido más a su país, medita y se piensa a si mismo, a su entorno, y también a la oposición hipócrita y cruel que aprovecha su enfermedad como una mercancía electoral, y saca las cuentas infames de la contabilidad de la muerte. Siente el amor del humilde que ama sin medida y sin cálculo.
      Palpa la fuerza de su Partido y también la debilidad de los dialogantes pusilánimes, de los precipitados que tiran puentes a lo más nefasto de la oposición. Desde allí, convaleciente, pudo medir la crueldad de los renegados que muestran más odio y menos mesura que los enemigos de siempre.
      Chávez, nuestro Chávez, pudo filosofar, ver desde su reposo la imagen del todo, lo general. La estrategia ocupó el lugar de la febril actividad de lo cotidiano, se reforzó su visión de estadista. De la difícil batalla sacó fortaleza para crecer, entendernos y entenderse mejor.
      Es así, el Chávez que vendrá será, necesariamente, mejor, pasó por una enseñanza que lo consagra.

      La oposición, siguiendo instrucciones de los gringos, quiere mostrarlo débil porque le temen, ahora más que nunca, a la fuerza del Chávez fortalecido en el desierto, probado en las dificultades, más conocedor de la vida porque vencer una enfermedad ilumina, lesiona el cuerpo pero eleva el alma de los grandes.
      El pueblo humilde debe prepararse para la extraordinaria etapa que viene, Chávez regresa para avanzar, a cambiar lo que tenga que ser cambiado, para profundizar, a fortalecer sus puntos probados en la dificultad.

      • geha714 says:
        July 3, 2011 at 3:50 am

        Dios, que vaina mas cursi.

        There are no words in English that can describe it, unless they are NSFW.

      • Pandora says:
        July 3, 2011 at 11:22 am

        Sorry, I know this is OT but I couldn`t resist posting it, clutching to the reference to Golinger as tenous justification. The point is not whether it`s cursi or bull (and much less whether what it says about Chavez is true). The point is what it what is says about the author and his kind, a sizeable portion of the population with its (quasi) religious tie to a ruler oercieved as confronting an ordeal “…casi como Cristo …”. One can dismiss Golinger, though some of her stuff borders on adoration, and the chorus of foreign admirers, but not the true believers. They evoke Os Sertões and Antônio Conselheiro. Scary and not to be ignored in future scenarios.

    • Guido says:
      July 3, 2011 at 4:06 am

      I saw Mario Silva that night and he said stuff like “The angry people will take care of those who mock Chávez” and “I had never seen him so full of life”. Seriously.

    • firepigette says:
      July 3, 2011 at 6:50 am

      Anyone who congratulates someone for seeing the obvious many many years too late, and despite the ample education of the congratulated and his at least average intelligence,needs to rethink his priorities Jeffry.

      • Jeffry House says:
        July 3, 2011 at 9:09 am

        My priority is to accept, with open arms, anyone who moves towards the “palanca”. When they come, I don’t say: “Too little too late” or “I was here first, so there.” I don’t think that is good politics.

        In Venezuela and worldwide, many millions of people were convinced that Chavez would do good things and make necessary reforms. We hope that, individually and in groups, they are recognizing their error. Our task is to make it easier to do that, not harder.

        • firepigette says:
          July 3, 2011 at 10:02 am

          Jeffry,

          1.accepting with open arms someone as cynical as Chomsky is naive and dangerous
          2.accepting with open arms is not that same as congratulating

          • Jeffry House says:
            July 3, 2011 at 10:31 am

            Your distinction between “accepting with open arms” on the one hand, and “congratulating” on the other, is certainly subtle. But I see you think one should do neither, apparently because Chomsky is “cynical”.

            Be that as it may, “Chomsky” represents many thousands, or maybe millions, of people. His statements about Afiuni and Venezuela represent a significant breach in the solidarity dike, and should be used to bring those people into a broader movement against dictatorship and arbitrary measures.

            I do this by telling them that I appreciate their support for democratic values and look forward to working with them in the future against dictatorial power.

            • firepigette says:
              July 3, 2011 at 11:32 am

              Jeffry,

              I doubt seriously if Chomsky embraces democratic values, which is why he supported Chavez til it hurt his image too much to do so.I vote for rejecting his support, based on my own sense of who this man is.

  8. Rich Rostrom says:
    July 3, 2011 at 1:44 am

    Chomsky’s “criticism” is way too little, way too late.

    He wrote that “Judge Afiuni has suffered enough.”

    This implies that she deserved to suffer some – for following the law, as Escualidas Arrechus noted.

    The scandal in the Afiuni case is that the Judge was arrested and imprisoned, essentially on Chavez’ whim, for not satisfying his whim in the Cedeno case.

    That didn’t bother Chomsky, and apparently it still doesn’t. Nor has anything else Chavez has done, including the arbitrary revocation of broadcast licences, massive use of state resources for partisan political ends, open violation of black-letter constitutional provisions, celebration of an attempted coup d’état, packing the high courts with partisans, corruption on a gigantic scale, squandering of the national wealth by incompetence, all but open support for murderous rebels against the democratic government of a neighboring country, and whole-hearted embrace of a totalitarian dictator.

    It is as if a full-throated defender of slavery in the Old South of the U.S. condemned, say, Jefferson Davis for flogging a slave with 50 lashes instead of 25.

    • Guido says:
      July 3, 2011 at 2:38 am

      (clapping)

    • loroferoz says:
      July 3, 2011 at 5:35 am

      Chomsky, after all, supported the Khmer Rouge until the very end. He was not bothered by a few shootings and torture. Just by genocide.

      Another reason the words become stuck in my mouth even if I wanted to wish Chavez recovery from his illness. I don’t really want him to die. But…

      There he is pampered and tended to in every way, with his daughter and with his old amigo Fidel.

      There they are, Afiuni and other political prisoners with illnesses untreated, visits restricted. There he is, Franklin Brito, “huele a formol”. There they are, the whole of Venezuelan society who cannot get health care for money or love.

    • Roy says:
      July 4, 2011 at 12:15 pm

      Bravo!

  10. Alek Boyd says:
    July 3, 2011 at 6:28 am

    Speaking about the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it Chronicles:

    Weil at his best @ http://venepiramides.blogspot.com/2011/07/el-sindrome-de-estocolmo.html

  11. Fombona says:
    July 3, 2011 at 7:52 am

    Boris Muñoz, Venezuelan journalist, now with a grant at Harvard, said that he talked to and asked Chomsky to write that letter as part of a campaing he’s been part of in the last few months.

    • Bilis Negra says:
      July 3, 2011 at 2:42 pm

      This is correct. It has been going for some time and is just a coincidence and good timing that Chomsky’s declarations coincided with Hugo’s illness and the imminent threats to chavismo.
      Note that this is politics plain and simple. Discussing Chomsky’s beliefs and whether he is an idiot, an arrepentido, an example of moral integrity or a cynic is beside the point. This HR think-tank at Harvard deliberately chose someone who has credibility among chavistas, the PSF International and other ultrosos to lobby on behalf of one of the most visible political prisioners of the regime. For the ultra-chavista-PSF fauna HRW and even Amnestry International becomes an agent of the CIA when criticizing the regime. With Chomsky is a bit more complicated.

  12. island canuck says:
    July 3, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Ha, ha, ha. Unbelievable!

    Golinger: Noam Chomsky desmiente carta de apoyo a Afiuni
    http://www.noticierodigital.com/2011/07/golinger-noam-chomsky-desmiente-carta-de-apoyo-a-afiuni/

    “Noam Chomsky desmitió este sábado una supuesta carta de apoyo a la ex jueza María Lourdes Afiuni y un distanciamiento del gobierno del presidente Chávez. Así lo aseguró Eva Golinger por Twitter. La abogado dijo que conversó con el intelectual y linguista, quien le habría confirmado “ser victima de la manipulación de los medios.”.

  13. syd says:
    July 3, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    In her little article, Golinger provides one solitary quote, which she attributes to Chomsky. The credibility index keeps rising. Not. Can’t wait for Chomsky’s so-called about-face.This is all so pathetic.

  14. Jeffry House says:
    July 3, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    But she forgot to mention that he told Alek that the New York Timers article on the letter is quite accurate! Where, for example, he says: “I hope that a move toward clemency with Judge Afiuni would be a step towards the importance of maintaining a properly functioning justice system,”

    • Roy says:
      July 4, 2011 at 12:35 pm

      In the case of Judge Afiuni, “clemency” is not sufficient. Justice requires nothing short of complete dismissal of the charges against her, official apologies, and complete restoration of her status and position, as well as back-pay. She was only doing her job correctly. Anything less is a complete failure of the justice system.

      Chomsky’s arrogance is typical of that of ivory tower intellectuals, so convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority that they feel justified in tossing about the lives of real people as though they were mere pawns to be disposed of when needed for their version of the “greater good”.

      Sorry, Dr. Chomsky… Too little, too late. You made your bed by associating yourself with tyrants. You will have to lie in it with miscreants you gave aid and comfort to. Too bad, so sad…

      • Jeffry House says:
        July 4, 2011 at 12:56 pm

        As someone who has worked on the Afiuni case for over a year, (see my blog below if interested) I particularly welcome Chomsky’s intervention on her behalf. It does not matter to me, or I suspect to her, that the support is couched as a request for “clemency” rather than demanding that Chavez admit he was wrong. That is because Chavez might reluctantly grant clemency, but I know damn well he won’t admit error.

        Chomsky’s intervention is a political one, meaning it is determined in part by what might actually be achieved.

        In a future democratic Venezuela—it’s coming you know–a newly elected government would be insane not to place Afiuni back on the judicial bench. Few people have demonstrated rectitude and general fitness for the bench as she has. Compared to the present toadies on the TSJ, her return to the bench would be a public promise to return integrity to the law.

  15. loroferoz says:
    July 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    I knew I had seen it somewhere! Regarding Chomsky and the regimes he has endorsed, a picture is worth a thousand words:

    http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index.php/2006/09/26/chom-chom/

    • Alek Boyd says:
      July 4, 2011 at 3:06 am

      Thanks for that loroferoz, that is brilliant. Duly posted.

      • loroferoz says:
        July 4, 2011 at 6:09 am

        Really, it’s Jim McCullough, the guy drawing (and blogging) Filibuster Cartoons that is brilliant. If you want humorous and intelligent caricature and comment of Canadian, U.S. and World politics and political culture, visit his site regularly.

        Attached to every cartoon there a post (and forum comments). Absolutely worth reading!

        But I gather most of you already knew that.

    • loroferoz says:
      July 4, 2011 at 3:18 am

      I mean, it’s ok to acknowledge your errors.

      Milton Friedman had to do with Chile, and with Pinochet. And was heavily criticized. And had to explain and apologize, and suffer a lot of publicity.

      But, were I Noam Chomsky, I would begin to seriously revise my worldview after so many strikeouts.

  16. Maria says:
    July 3, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    I cannot believe that anybody would consider the words of that a-hole:

    The top 200 Chomsky lies:

    http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

    • Kepler says:
      July 4, 2011 at 4:11 am

      Maria, reality is more complex than that. But then you should read not just exerpts from what Chomsky said as digested by people who think like you, but read more, more, from different sides, their whole story and not that according to your peers. For instance, start with this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War_for_Civilisation:_The_Conquest_of_the_Middle_East
      He tackles a lot of the points listed there about the Middle East. And he has debated over and over about this.
      The funny thing is conservatives right away talk about Fisking and start to shoot themselves in the foot.
      Chomsky has said a lot of things that are not right, and he has said a lot of things that are true but that few in the States ever hear of, as news agencies suck.

      • loroferoz says:
        July 4, 2011 at 6:28 am

        Reality is a lot more complex than a few excerpted comments. But bottom line, Chomsky still needs to revise his worldview (and ethical criteria) very seriously.

        To be on record for eulogy and propaganda for almost all the genocidal regimes after World War II makes one look like the godfather of all Trolls who pioneered the activity on paper before the Internet was widespread. Being on record as sincere in such eulogizing makes you look like a complete nut job.

  17. firepigette says:
    July 4, 2011 at 7:11 am

    Chomsky’s personality is based on petty.He is what I call a petty mind ” intellectual” …one who does not see the forest for the trees.He is hypocritical, and thinks he is the great judge of right and wrong but is secretly a louse.Petty minds can never be the judge of right and wrong.Let them stick to their spread sheets, and grammatical details.

    He is jealous of others but always tries to keep his anger hidden.He won’t admit his great prejudice, anger and hatred.But inside he boils with fury at everything he hates.He won’t admit his bias or fury,or his lack of objectivity.No, because his self image is one who is all wise and gets to tell everybody else what to do.

    This sort of personality unless redeemed can do a great deal of damage.

  18. island canuck says:
    July 4, 2011 at 7:18 am

    Here is a transcript of NC’s conversation with the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/noam-chomsky-venezuela

    • Kepler says:
      July 4, 2011 at 7:30 am

      Oh, my God! Chomsky comes particularly silly in that transcript. He uses the case of USSR dissidents not wanting to denounce US aleged crimes? What the heck is he talking about?
      Any crime stands on its own, period.
      And he is a bloody coward.

  19. Arturo says:
    July 4, 2011 at 8:47 am

    Volvió, volvió, volvió! Y ahora qué van a criticar?
    We’ll see how the media behave now that Chávez is back. So far the whole attitude has been totally repugnant but I congratulate CC for manitaining a civilized tone in the face of Chávez’s adversity when compared to the despicable stuff published by some of CC’s contenporaries.

    • Kepler says:
      July 4, 2011 at 8:53 am

      Arturo, cuándo meten preso a Anibal Chávez por lo de Pudreval?
      Arturo, cuándo meten preso a Jesse Chacón, que sabía que su hermano se había hecho multimillonario de manera ilegal? Cuándo sabemos qué pasó con el juicio del revolucionario Arné Chacón? los pormenores?

      • Arturo says:
        July 4, 2011 at 9:58 am

        Kepler – volvió. Get used to it and thank Fidel and Raúl for their solidarity!

        Before we speak about the “crimes” of the people you mention let’s deal with the tortured and disappeared from 1958 to 1998. One thing at a time and preferably chronologically.

        • Kepler says:
          July 4, 2011 at 10:03 am

          Preferably? We have different preferences. I am living in the present, you are living in the past (even if Chavistas are more a continuation of the past than anything else: murderers Rodríguez Chacín and Freddy Bernal are just some examples)

          Anyway, I look forward to seeing Chávez traveling through Venezuela, through all of it. He should start to move his ass ASAP!

          • Arturo says:
            July 4, 2011 at 12:19 pm

            Empty accusations from a fantic, Kepler.

            Yes, I am certain that we will see Chavez traveling thorugh the Bolivarin Republic but when he is ready not “ASAP” as you irrationally demand.

            I congratulate you on being able to rein in your insults for once Kepler.

    • extorres says:
      July 4, 2011 at 8:57 am

      El avión, el avión, el avión! :)

      –

    • Moraimag says:
      July 4, 2011 at 9:02 am

      Arturo, that is great news, we welcome him with a heartfelt “Patria, socialismo o muerte mi comandante”…

      • Arturo says:
        July 4, 2011 at 10:03 am

        Thanks but no thanks Moraima – but we do not need your sort of welcome. Go and enjoy your July 4th celebrations on Globovisión and eat your pumpkin pie….or apple pie if you prefer it..

    • syd says:
      July 4, 2011 at 10:20 am

      Arturo: It must be torture for you to visit this blog as frequently as you do. But hey, you’re free to come and go. Unlike hundreds jailed in Venezuela without cause or trial, living in despicable conditions.

      • Arturo says:
        July 4, 2011 at 12:16 pm

        Yes, syd – you are confusing presos políticos with políticos presos. These trials will happen but they have to wait their turn.

        You can come and go as you pleae as far as Venezuela is concerned but continue enjoying your life in sunnty California where you have zero idea about Venezuela.

        • syd says:
          July 4, 2011 at 2:52 pm

          In your ideology from afar, please define your políticos presos with presos políticos, give us some names in each of your categories and provide the number of years they have spent under arrest, waiting for trial. Oh, and don’t hide, when you can’t answer.

          Btw, you’re so waaay off on where I live. But then again, you’re not known to match your words to reality.

        • NicaCat says:
          July 4, 2011 at 8:19 pm

          Ufff…tarado, te voy a decir esto: si no puedes comunicarte bien en inglés, todos aquí quisiéramos que no trataras de ningun modo. You’re such an idiot, we’re certainly much better off without your stupid(ly) expressed commentaries.

    • loroferoz says:
      July 4, 2011 at 11:34 am

      He came back… quite a sick man. This is no criticism, it’s fact.

      He is still a spiritually sick man, an incompetent and a despot. The head of a government that keeps political prisoners and denies them attention. The puppet of an infinitely worse tyranny in Cuba.

      No sympathy from me and I hope, no respite from the opposition.

      Pongase las alpargatas que lo que viene es joropo y zapateao!

      The extent of my sympathy is to suggest that he retire from politics. He was not born to the post of President, and he wanted to die in it. Wish granted, if he keeps like he was going before. His own death, his own suicide.

  20. syd says:
    July 4, 2011 at 9:42 am

    I’m glad to see Rory Carroll’s Guardian transcript, aren’t you, Eva? It clarifies a few things that the article made a little muddy, and more so in your plagiarized libretto. Yes, I believe you lifted text from Alek Boyd’s efforts, and refashioned it to build your own credibility. But this is not about you, dear, but rather about one member of your hero-worship constellation. .

    Chomsky is indeed a coward, preferring to sit on the fence. But he does dip his toes, when he is helped (by Rory Carroll) to make a decision.

    So now we know that Chomsky, by his own admission, is opposed to:
    “the accumulation of executive power anywhere.” He personally doesn’t think this accumulation is justified in terms of the security situation and the attacks (?) on Venezuela.

    We know that Chomsky, by his own admission, is aware that:
    [Judge Afiuni] is “not receiving any trial at all [in Venezuela]. I rather doubt, I’d be sceptical about whether she could receive a fair trial.”

    We know that Chomsky’s suspicions follow his wondering why:
    “other judges have not come out in support of [Judge Afiuni] which seems rather strange given the circumstances. If Amnesty International does I don’t see why judges in Venezuela shouldn’t. That suggests an atmosphere of either intimidation or unwillingness to consider the case seriously. I don’t know. My suspicion is she would not receive a fair trial.”

    Chomsky concludes:
    “It’s obviously improper for the executive to intervene and impose a jail sentence without a trial.” And that the Bradley Manning issue in the United States “doesn’t change the judgment about Venezuela,”

    Chomsky also states that:
    “Concentration of executive powers .. is an assault on democracy.” But he won’t directly answer Carroll’s repeated question on whether this application applies to Venezuela.

    Chomsky does say that:
    “Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo and it has to be guarded against.”

    He is not sure, but thinks “perhaps it is” in the case of Venezuela.

    In the case of Venezuela, there’s been “a trend which has developed towards the centralisation of power in the executive which I don’t think is a healthy development.”

    “Decision-making powers generally seems, eh, the constraints imposed by the legislature are there but they seem limited.”

    Any questions, Eva?

  21. gordo says:
    July 4, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Chomski is a socialist… but also a realist.

    • syd says:
      July 4, 2011 at 12:07 pm

      you mean, a realist about his own image?

      • Gordo says:
        July 7, 2011 at 3:04 am

        Socialist, meaning that he believes government should play a roll to lift up those who need help. Realist being that he hoped chavez would succeed and was patient for perhaps too long, but he finally faced the reality and realized his mistake and went public. To me this is rare. Socialists and communists that I have known are pure idealists and can’t seem to find fault among their kind.

        • Kepler says:
          July 7, 2011 at 3:16 am

          he hasn’t gone public on that. He has never ever said he has been wrong on anything but (and I am almost quoting) how naive he was about the US/the West doing something good. Really, in the end he justifies anything, if only “because the US forced Venezuela to have people like Chávez”. He is beyond…

  22. Roy says:
    July 5, 2011 at 10:50 am

    This business of the Manning case is a red herring thrown out to obscure the real issues. And it appears to have worked.

  23. moggie99 says:
    July 5, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    One of the worst diseases of the far left is the creation of false equivalencies. Complaints about the gulag were met, when I was young, with the response “What About the Negroes in the South?”

    The Manning case is being used in this way. I myself am uncomfortable with some of the treatment which has been handed out to Manning. But he will get a fair trial, and if he wants it, a jury trial. Afiuni, who has a clear right to a modified jury trial, has been told she will be tried by judge alone, and by a judge who has publicly proclaimed that he will never betray his “comandante” or “this grand revolutionary process”. In the Manning case, there is no reason to believe that the judge, or the jury, will have any allegiance other than to the facts.

    As well, Afiuni has been denied the right, set out in the Code of Penal Procedure. to a public trial, as in her case Spanish and other judicial figures have indicated interest in attending. Manning’s trial will be utterly public.

    It The comparison is quite faulty.

Comments are closed.