View Full Version : South of the border.

02-19-2011, 04:14 PM
I watched South Of The Border -- a film by Oliver Stone. It iz mainly about my hero Hugo Chavez.
It sez lots about FauxNews lies.
I like the bit where Argentina Prezident Kirchner tells of Dubbya leaning over and whispering that "a war would help solve the south's ekenomik problems, it allways duz" -- or words to that effekt.
Some of the usofa TV and print media stinx bad.

02-19-2011, 04:20 PM
You believe Stone makes documentaries?

That's funny.


02-19-2011, 04:46 PM
All info iz good.
I prefer to see & listen to people with an attitude. A neutral sort of journalist iz an ignorant journalist. I dont hav time for ignorant journalists.

02-19-2011, 04:46 PM
Mainstream journalismPilger has a bi-weekly column in New Statesman, which is his most frequent outlet. He is a strong critic of the institutions and economic forces that structure 'mainstream' journalism. In an address at Columbia University on 14 April 2006, he said:[22]

“ During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. 'I have to tell you,' said their spokesman, 'that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don't have that. What's the secret? How do you do it?' ”

Pilger said, while speaking to journalism students at the University of Lincoln, that mainstream journalism means corporate journalism, and as such represents vested corporate interests over those of the public.[23]

He is particularly scornful of pro-Iraq war commentators on the liberal left, or 'liberal interventionists', such as Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch.

02-19-2011, 04:47 PM
Latin AmericaHis 2007 film The War on Democracy was Pilger's first cinema release and was named Best Documentary at the 2008 One World Media Awards.[18] The film explores the historic and current relationship of Washington with Latin American countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Chile. Using, among other sources, archive footage sourced by Michael Moore's archivist Carl Deal, the film explores the role of US intervention, overt and covert, in toppling a series of governments in the region since the 1950s. This includes, for example, discussing reports of US involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected Chilean government of Salvador Allende in 1973 and its replacement by the military dictatorship of General Pinochet. Pilger interviews several ex-CIA agents who purportedly took part in secret campaigns against democratic countries. He investigates the School of the Americas in the US state of Georgia, where Pinochet’s torture squads were reportedly trained along with tyrants and death squad leaders in Haiti, El Salvador, Brazil and Argentina.

The film also explores the attempted overthrow of Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez in 2002 and how the people of Caracas rose up to force his return to power. It looks at the wider rise of populist governments across South America lead by figures calling for loosening ties with Washington and a fairer redistribution of the continent's natural wealth. "[The film]" says Pilger, "is about the struggle of people to free themselves from a modern form of slavery". These people, he says, "describe a world not as American presidents like to see it as useful or expendable, they describe the power of courage and humanity among people with next to nothing. They reclaim noble words like democracy, freedom, liberation, justice, and in doing so they are defending the most basic human rights of all of us in a war being waged against all of us".[19]

In May 2007, Pilger co-signed and put forward a letter supporting the refusal of the government of Venezuela to renew the broadcasting licence of Venezuela's largest television network Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), as they openly supported a 2002 coup attempt against the democratically elected government. Pilger and other signatories suggest that if the BBC or ITV used their news broadcasts to publicly support a coup against the British government, they would suffer similar consequences.[20] Other groups, such as Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists, have described the RCTV decision as an effort to stifle freedom of expression.[21]

02-19-2011, 05:00 PM
Set both in Latin America and the United States, the film explores the historic and current relationship of Washington with countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Chile. Pilger says that the film "...tells a universal story... analysing and revealing, through vivid testimony, the story of great power behind its venerable myths. It allows us to understand the true nature of the so-called "war on terror". According to Pilger, the film’s message is that the greed and power of empire is not invincible and that people power is always the "seed beneath the snow".

Pilger interviews several ex-CIA agents who purportedly took part in secret campaigns against democratic countries and who he claims are profiting from the war in Iraq. He investigates the School of the Americas in the U.S. state of Georgia, where General Pinochet’s torture squads were reportedly trained along with tyrants and death-squad leaders in Haiti, El Salvador, Brazil and Argentina.

The film uses archive footage to support its claim that democracy has been wiped out in country after country in Latin America since the 1950s. Testimonies from those who fought for democracy in Chile and Bolivia are also used.

Segments filmed in Bolivia show that for the last five years huge popular movements have demanded that multinational companies be refused to access the country's natural reserves of gas, or to buy up the water supply. In Bolivia, Pilger interviews people who say that their country's resources, including their water and rainwater, were asset stripped by multinational interests. He describes how they threw out a foreign water consortium and reclaimed their water supply. The narrative leads to the landslide election of the country's first indigenous President.

In Chile, Pilger talks to women who survived the pogroms of General Augusto Pinochet, in remembrance of colleagues who perished at the hands of the dictator. He walks with Sara de Witt through the grounds of the torture house in which she was tortured and survived. Pilger also investigates the "model democracy" that Chile has become and claims that there is a façade of prosperity and that Pinochet’s legacy is still alive.

The film also tells the story of an American nun, Dianna Ortiz, who tells how she was tortured and gang raped in the late 1980s by a gang reportedly led by a fellow American clearly in league with the U.S.-backed regime, at a time when the Reagan administration was supplying the military regime with planes and guns. Ortiz asks whether the American people are aware of the role their country plays in subverting innocent nations under the guise of a "war on terror". Former CIA agent and Watergate scandal conspirator Howard Hunt, who describes how he and others overthrew the previously democratically elected government. Hunt describes how he organised "a little harmless bombing". Duane Clarridge, former head of CIA operations in South America is also interviewed.

Pilger traveled through Venezuela with its president, Hugo Chavez, who he regards as the only leader of an oil-producing nation who has used its resources democratically for the education and health of its people. The Venezuelan segment of the film features the coup of 2002, captured in archival footage. The film holds that the 2002 coup against Chavez was backed by rich and powerful interests under U.S. support and that Chavez was brought back to power by the Venezuelan people. Pilger describes the advances in Venezuela’s new social democracy, but he also questions Chavez on why there are still poor people in such an oil-rich country.

02-19-2011, 05:08 PM
I remember a workmate telling me about how hiz son spent a year in the usofa at high school. When about to return to ozz the school class asked about hiz thorts on the usofa. He sayd that one thing that struck him woz that the TV etc news in the usofa seemed to him to be narrow and biased and sort of censored, whereaz in ozz the news etc woz free-range.
The class woz shocked, and poo-pooed hiz comment.

02-19-2011, 05:21 PM
This is evident by how often the network news carries the same 3-1/2 stories, and in the same order.

They've put an Overton window over reality, and by centering on what is meant to be seen, hide whatever is off screen behind the wall next to the window.

Among the more sneakier powers of media control is the power to ignore, not report, and it is hard for people to know what they're not being told.

02-19-2011, 05:29 PM
The high skool bizness woz years ago -- nowadays of course u kan find good stuff if u want to. And i guess he woz staying with a Rotary family, and probly hadta look at what they looked at.
Some more chavez stuff............

It is commonly reported in the international press, and widely believed, that the government of President Hugo Chávez controls the media in Venezuela. For example, writing about Venezuela's September elections for the National Assembly, the Washington Post's deputy editorial page editor and columnist, Jackson Diehl, referred to the Chávez "regime's domination of the media. . . ."[1] In an interview on CNN, Lucy Morillon of Reporters Without Borders stated, "President Chávez controls most of the TV stations."[2] And on PBS in November 2010, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega stated that the Venezuelan media is "virtually under the control of Chávez."[3] Such statements are made regularly in the major media and almost never challenged.

Table 1 shows the evolution of Venezuelan television audience share from 2000-2010. There are three categories: private broadcast channels, which are privately owned and available on broadcast television without payment; the state channels, which are run by the government and also broadcast without payment by the viewer;[4] and private paid TV, which includes cable and satellite, for which the subscriber must pay a fee; and other paid programming that is being watched during the time of the survey.

As can be seen from the table, as of September 2010, Venezuelan state TV channels had just a 5.4 percent audience share. Of the other 94.6 percent of the audience, 61.4 percent were watching privately owned television channels, and 33.1 percent were watching paid TV.

Since the private TV owners are mostly against the government, it is clear that more than 94 percent of the TV that is seen by Venezuelans is not pro-government. In fact, much of the private media is stridently anti-government, in ways that go beyond the boundaries of what is permitted in the United States, for example.[5] There are no data that describe the breakdown of audience share of the various TV channels on the basis of political bias. However, it is clear from this data, based on household surveys over a 10-year period, that statements about the Venezuelan government "controlling" or "dominating" the media are not only exaggerated, but simply false.

02-19-2011, 05:39 PM
The Venezuelan Economy: Media Sources Get It Wrong, Again
Monday 13 September 2010
by: Mark Weisbrot | The Center for Economic and Policy Research | News Analysis

The bulk of the media often gets pulled along for the ride when the United States government has a serious political and public relations campaign around foreign policy. But almost nowhere is it so monolithic as with Venezuela. Even in the run-up to the Iraq War, there were a significant number of reporters and editorial writers who didn't buy the official story. But on Venezuela the media is more like a jury that has twelve people but only one brain.
Since the Venezuelan opposition decided to campaign for the September elections on the issue of Venezuela's high homicide rate, the international press has been flooded with stories on this theme – some of them highly exaggerated. This is actually quite an amazing public relations achievement for the Venezuelan opposition. Although most of the Venezuelan media, as measured by audience, is still owned by the political opposition there, the international press is not. Normally it takes some kind of news hook, even if only a milestone such as the 10,000th murder, or a political statement from the White House, for a media campaign of this magnitude to take off. But in this case all it took was a decision by the Venezuelan political opposition that homicide would be its main campaign issue, and the international press was all over it.
The "all bad news, all the time" theme was overwhelmingly dominant even during Venezuela's record economic expansion, from 2003-2008. The economy grew as never before, poverty was cut by more than half, and there were large gains in employment. Real social spending per person more than tripled, and free health care was expanded to millions of people. You will have to search very hard to find these basic facts presented in a mainstream media article, although the numbers are hardly in dispute among economists in international organizations that deal with statistics.
For example, in May the UN Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) found that Venezuela had reduced inequality by more than any other country in Latin America from 2002-2008, ending up with the most equal income distribution in the region. This has yet to be mentioned by the major international press.
Venezuela went into recession in 2009, and you can imagine how much more press attention has since been paid to GDP growth there than when Venezuela was growing faster than any economy in the hemisphere. Then in January the government devalued its currency, and the press was forecasting a big upsurge in inflation, to as much as 60 percent for this year. "Stagflation" – recession plus rising inflation – became the new buzzword.
The "out-of-control" inflation didn't happen – in fact, inflation over the last three months, which is 21 percent at an annualized rate, is considerably lower than before the devaluation. This is yet another indicator that the economists relied upon by major media as sources have limited understanding of the actual functioning of Venezuela's economy.
Now it looks like Venezuela may have emerged from its recession in the second quarter of this year. On a seasonally adjusted annualized basis, the economy grew by 5.2 percent in the second quarter. In June, Morgan Stanley projected that the economy would shrink by 6.2 percent this year and by 1.2 percent next year. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is projecting long-term gloom and doom for Venezuela: negative per capita GDP growth over the next five years. It is worth noting that the IMF gave the authors of "Dow 36,000" some competition for creative forecasting, with their repeated, wildly off-the-mark underestimates of the Venezuelan economy during the expansion.
All this may seem like par for the course if we compare with coverage of the world's largest economy – the United States – where the vast majority of the media somehow missed the two biggest asset bubbles in world history – the stock market and then the housing bubble. But there were important exceptions here, e.g. the New York Times in 2006. With Venezuela – well, you get the picture.
Of course Venezuela's continued growth is not assured – it will depend on the government making a commitment to maintaining high levels of aggregate demand, and keeping it. In that sense its immediate situation is similar to that of the United States, the Eurozone, and many other more developed economies whose economic recovery is sluggish and uncertain right now.
Venezuela has adequate foreign exchange reserves, is running a trade and current account surplus, has low levels of foreign public debt and quite a bit of foreign borrowing capacity if needed. This was demonstrated most recently in April with a $20 billion (about 6 percent of Venezuela's GDP) credit from China. As such, it is extremely unlikely to run up against a foreign exchange shortage. It can therefore use public spending and investment as much as necessary to make sure that the economy grows sufficiently to increase employment and living standards, as it did before the 2009 recession. (Our government in the United States could do the same, even more easily – but that does not appear to be in the cards right now.) This can go on for many years.
Whatever happens, we can expect complete coverage of one side of the story from the media. So keep it in mind: when you are reading the New York Times or listening to NPR on Venezuela, you are getting Fox News. If you want something more balanced, you will have to look for it on the Internet.

02-19-2011, 06:25 PM
Venezuelan President's Speech on Climate Change in Copenhagen
Hugo Chavez's Speech in Copenhagen (VIDEO)

By Hugo Chavez
Copenhagen, Kingdom of Denmark
Wednesday, December 16th, 2009

President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez:

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, Excellencies, friends, I promise that I will not talk more than most have spoken this afternoon. Allow me an initial comment which I would have liked to make as part of the previous point which was expressed by the delegations of Brazil, China, India, and Bolivia. We were there asking to speak but it was not possible. Bolivia's representative said, my salute of course to Comrade President Evo Morales, who is there, President of the Republic of Bolivia.
[Audience applause]

She said among other things the following, I noted it here, she said the text presented is not democratic, it is not inclusive.

I had hardly arrived and we were just sitting down when we heard the president of the previous session, the minister, saying that a document came about, but nobody knows, I've asked for the document, but we still don't have it, I think nobody knows of that top secret document.

Now certainly, as the Bolivian comrade said, that is not democratic, it is not inclusive. Now, ladies and gentlemen, isn't that just the reality of the world? Are we in a democratic world? Is the global system inclusive? Can we hope for something democratic, inclusive from the current global system?

What we are experiencing on this planet is an imperial dictatorship, and from here we continue denouncing it. Down with imperial dictatorship! And long live the people and democracy and equality on this planet!
[Audience applause]

And what we see here is a reflection of this: Exclusion.

There is a group of countries that consider themselves superior to us in the South, to us in the Third World, to us, the underdeveloped countries, or as a great friend Eduardo Galeano says, we, the crushed countries, as if a train ran over us in history.

In light of this, it's no surprise that there is no democracy in the world and here we are again faced with powerful evidence of global imperial dictatorship. Then two youths got up here, fortunately the enforcement officials were decent, some push around, and they collaborated right? There are many people outside, you know? Of course, they do not fit in this room, they are too many people. I've read in the news that there were some arrests, some intense protests, there in the streets of Copenhagen, and I salute all those people out there, most of them youth.
[Audience applause]

Of course young people are concerned, I think rightly much more than we are, for the future of the world. We have - most of us here - the sun on our backs, and they have to face the sun and are very worried.

One could say, Mr. President, that a spectre is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx, a spectre is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that spectre walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, out below, it rises, this spectre is a terrible spectre almost nobody wants to mention it: Capitalism is the spectre, almost nobody wants to mention it.
[Audience applause]

It's capitalism, the people roar, out there, hear them.

I have been reading some of the slogans painted on the streets, and I think those slogans of these youngsters, some of which I heard when I was young, and of the young woman there, two of which I noted. You can hear among others, two powerful slogans. One: Don't change the climate, change the system.
[Audience applause]

And I bring it onboard for us. Let's not change the climate, let's change the system! And consequently we will begin to save the planet. Capitalism is a destructive development model that is putting an end to life; it threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.

And another slogan calls for reflection. It is very in tune with the banking crisis that swept the world and still affects it, and of how the rich northern countries gave aid to bankers and the big banks. The U.S. alone gave, well, I lost the figure, but it is astronomical, to save the banks. They say in the streets the following: If the climate were a bank it would have been saved already.
[Audience applause]

And I think that's true. If the climate were one of the biggest capitalist banks, the rich governments would have saved it.

I think Obama has not arrived. He received the Nobel Peace Prize almost the same day that he sent 30 thousand soldiers to kill more innocents in Afghanistan, and now he comes to stand here with the Nobel Peace Prize, the president of the United States.

But the United States has the machinery to make money, to make dollars, and has saved, well, they believe they have saved the banks and the capitalist system.

Well, this is a side comment that I wanted to make previously. We were raising our hand to accompany Brazil, India, Bolivia, China, in their interesting position that Venezuela and the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance firmly share. But hey, they didn't let us speak, so do not count these minutes please, Mr. President.
[Audience applause]

Look, over there I met, I had the pleasure of meeting this French author Hervé Kempf. Recommending this book, I recommend it, it is available in Spanish – there is Hervé - its also in French, and surely in English, How the Rich are Destroying the Planet. Hervé Kempf: How the Rich are Destroying the Planet. This is what Christ said: it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is what our lord Christ said.
[Audience applause]

The rich are destroying the planet. Do they think the can go to another when they destroy this one? Do they have plans to go to another planet? So far there is none on the horizon of the galaxy.

This book has just reached me, Ignacio Ramonet gave it to me, and he is also around somewhere in this room. Finishing the prologue or the preamble this phrase is very important, Kempf says the following, I'll read it:

"We can not reduce global material consumption if we don't make the powerful go down several levels, and if we don't combat inequality. It is necessary that to the ecological principle that is so useful at the time of becoming conscious, 'think globally and act locally,' we add the principle that the situation imposes: 'Consume less and share better.'"

I think it is good advice that this French author Hervé Kempf gives us.
[Audience applause]

Well then, Mr. President, climate change is undoubtedly the most devastating environmental problem of this century. Floods, droughts, severe storms, hurricanes, melting ice caps, rise in mean sea levels, ocean acidification and heat waves, all of that sharpens the impact of global crisis besetting us.

Current human activity exceeds the threshold of sustainability, endangering life on the planet, but also in this we are profoundly unequal.

I want to recall: the 500 million richest people, 500 million, this is seven percent, seven percent, seven percent of the world's population. This seven percent is responsible, these 500 million richest people are responsible for 50 percent of emissions, while the poorest 50 percent accounts for only seven percent of emissions.

So it strikes me as a bit strange to put the United States and China at the same level. The United States has just, well; it will soon reach 300 million people. China has nearly five times the U.S. population. The United Status consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day, China only reaches 5-6 million barrels a day, you can't ask the same of the United States and China.

There are issues to discuss, hopefully we the heads of states and governments can sit down and discuss the truth, the truth about these issues.

So, Mr. President, 60 percent of the planet's ecosystems are damaged, 20 percent of the earth's crust is degraded, we have been impassive witnesses to deforestation, land conversion, desertification, deterioration of fresh water systems, overexploitation of marine resources, pollution and loss of biodiversity.

The overuse of the land exceeds by 30 percent the capacity to regenerate it. The planet is losing what the technicians call the ability to regulate itself; the planet is losing this. Every day more waste than can be processed is released. The survival of our species hammers in the consciousness of humanity. Despite the urgency, it has taken two years of negotiations for a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, and we attend this event without any real and meaningful agreement.

And indeed, on the text that comes from out of the blue, as some have called it, Venezuela says, and the ALBA countries, the Bolivarian Alliance say that we will not accept, since then we've said it, any other texts that do not come from working groups under the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention. They are the legitimate texts that we have been discussing so intensely over the years.
[Audience applause]

And in these last few hours, I believe you have not slept, plus you have not eaten, you have not slept. It does not seem logical to me to come out now with a document from scratch, as you say.

The scientifically substantiated objective of reducing the emission of polluting gases and achieving an agreement on long-term cooperation clearly, today at this time, has apparently failed, for now.

What is the reason? We have no doubt.

The reason is the irresponsible attitude and lack of political will from the most powerful nations on the planet. No one should feel offended, I recall the great José Gervasio Artigas when he said: "With the truth, I neither offend nor fear." But it is actually an irresponsible attitude of positions, of reversals, of exclusions, of elitist management of a problem that belongs to everyone and that we can only solve together.

The political conservatism and selfishness of the largest consumers, of the richest countries shows high insensitivity and lack of solidarity with the poor, the hungry, and the most vulnerable to disease, to natural disasters. Mr. President, a new and single agreement is essential, applicable to absolutely unequal parties, according to the magnitude of their contributions and economic, financial and technological capabilities and based on unconditional respect for the principles contained in the Convention.

Developed countries should set binding, clear and concrete commitments for the substantial reduction of their emissions and assume obligations of financial and technological assistance to poor countries to cope with the destructive dangers of climate change. In this respect, the uniqueness of island states and least developed countries should be fully recognized.

Mr. President, climate change is not the only problem facing humanity today. Other scourges and injustices beset us, the gap between rich and poor countries has continued to grow, despite all the millennium goals, the Monterrey financing summit, at all these summits as the President of Senegal said here, revealing a great truth, there are promises and unfulfilled promises and the world continues its destructive march.

The total income of the 500 richest individuals in the world is greater than the income of the 416 million poorest people. The 2.8 billion people living in poverty on less than $2 per day, representing 40 per percent of the global population, receive only 5 percent of world income.

Today each year about 9.2 million children die before reaching their fifth year and 99.9 percent of these deaths occur in poorer countries.

Infant mortality is 47 deaths per thousand live births, but is only 5 per thousand in rich countries. Life expectancy on the planet is 67 years, in rich countries it is 79, while in some poor nations is only 40 years.

Additionally, there are 1.1 billion people without access to drinking water, 2.6 billion without sanitation services, over 800 million illiterate and 1.02 billion hungry people, that's the global scenario.

Now the cause, what is the cause?

Let's talk about the cause, let's not evade responsibilities, and let's not evade the depth of this problem. The cause, undoubtedly, I return to the theme of this whole disastrous panorama, is the destructive metabolic system of capital and its embodied model: Capitalism.

Here's a quote that I want to read briefly, from that great liberation theologian Leonardo Boff, as we know a Brazilian, our American. Leonardo Boff says on this subject as follows:

"What is the cause? Ah, the cause is the dream of seeking happiness through material accumulation and of endless progress, using for this science and technology with which they can exploit without limits all the resources of the earth."

And he cites here Charles Darwin and his "natural selection", the survival of the fittest, but we know that the strongest survive over the ashes of the weakest.

Jean Jacques Rousseau, we must always remember, said that between the strong and the weak, freedom is oppressed. That's why the Empire speaks of freedom; it's the freedom to oppress, to invade, to kill, to annihilate, and to exploit. That is their freedom, and Rousseau adds this saving phrase: "Only the law liberates."

There are countries that are hoping that no document comes out of here precisely because they do not want a law, do not want a standard, because the absence of these norms allows them to play at their exploitative freedom, their crushing freedom.

We must make an effort and pressure here and in the streets, so that a commitment comes out of here, a document that commits the most powerful countries on earth.
[Audience applause]

Well, Mr. President, Leonardo Boff asks... Have you met Boff? I do not know whether Leonardo might come, I met him recently in Paraguay, we've always read him.
Can a finite earth support an infinite project? The thesis of capitalism, infinite development, is a destructive pattern, let's face it.

Then Boff asks us, what might we expect from Copenhagen? At least this simple confession: We can not continue like this. And a simple proposition: Let's change course. Let's do it, but without cynicism, without lies, without double agendas, no documents out of the blue, with the truth out in the open.

How long, we ask from Venezuela, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, how long are we going to allow such injustices and inequalities? How long are we going to tolerate the current international economic order and prevailing market mechanisms? How long are we going to allow huge epidemics like HIV/AIDS to ravage entire populations? How long are we going to allow the hungry to not eat or to be able to feed their own children? How long are we going to allow millions of children to die from curable diseases? How long will we allow armed conflicts to massacre millions of innocent human beings in order for the powerful to seize the resources of other peoples?

Cease the aggressions and the wars! We the peoples of the world ask of the empires, to those who try to continue dominating the world and exploiting us.

No more imperial military bases or military coups! Let's build a more just and equitable economic and social order, let's eradicate poverty, let's immediately stop the high emission levels, let's stop environmental degradation and avoid the great catastrophe of climate change, let's integrate ourselves into the noble goal of everyone being more free and united.

Mr. President, almost two centuries ago, a universal Venezuelan, a liberator of nations and precursor of consciences left to posterity a full-willed maxim: "If nature opposes us, let's fight against it and make it obey us." That was Simón Bolívar, the Liberator.

From Bolivarian Venezuela, where a day like today some ten years ago, ten years exactly, we experienced the biggest climate tragedy in our history (the Vargas tragedy it is called), from this Venezuela whose revolution tries to win justice for all people, we say it is only possible through the path of socialism!

Socialism, the other spectre Karl Marx spoke about, which walks here too, rather it is like a counter-spectre. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don't have the least doubt. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world. We say this from Venezuela, which because of socialism faces threats from the U.S. Empire.

From the countries that comprise ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance, we call, and I want to, with respect, but from my soul, call in the name of many on this planet, we say to governments and peoples of the Earth, to paraphrase Simón Bolívar, the Liberator: If the destructive nature of capitalism opposes us, let's fight against it and make it obey us, let's not wait idly by the death of humanity.

History calls on us to unite and to fight.

If capitalism resists, we are obliged to take up a battle against capitalism and open the way for the salvation of the human species. It's up to us, raising the banners of Christ, Mohammed, equality, love, justice, humanity, the true and most profound humanism. If we don't do it, the most wonderful creation of the universe, the human being, will disappear, it will disappear.

This planet is billions of years old, and this planet existed for billions of years without us, the human species, i.e. it doesn't need us to exist. Now, without the Earth we will not exist, and we are destroying Pachamama as Evo says, as our indigenous brothers from South America say.

Finally, Mr. President, and to finish, let's listen to Fidel Castro when he said: "One species is in danger of extinction: Humanity."

Let's listen to Rosa Luxemburg when she said: "Socialism or Barbarism."

Let us listen to Christ the Redeemer when he said: "Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, we are capable of not making this Earth the tomb of humanity. Let us make this earth a heaven, a heaven of life, of peace, peace and brotherhood for all humanity, for the human species.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much and enjoy your meal.
[Audience applause]
Translated by Kiraz Janicke

02-19-2011, 06:38 PM
Transcript of Cindy Sheehan's Interview with Hugo Chavez
Transcript of Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox Interview with President Hugo Chavez
Transcribed by Regina Freitag Original Translation by Eva Golinger Interviewer: Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan: Welcome to this video and audio audition of Cindy Sheehan’s SoapBox.

Presidente Chavez, thank you for being on the show, thank you for this interview and thank you for allowing me to bring the truth about Venezuela and about you and about your revolution to the people of the United States.

Before the revolution, Venezuela was a nation that was ruled and used up by the oligarchy, the elite. How did your revolution begin, how did it manage to remain relatively peaceful?

Hugo Chavez: Thank you Cindy, for this interview, for your efforts, that are so honorable and notable, to try to find out our truth and to contribute to its diffusion. And we wish you much luck in your struggles, which are ours as well, against war, for peace, for freedom and equality and against imperialism. We accompany you in your struggles. You and the people of the United States. We love them the same. The bourgeoisie of Venezuela has always dominated the country, for more than a hundred years. And they dominated it with force, using violence, persecution, assassination and disappearances. Unfortunately, the Venezuelan history is a history full of a lot of violence, violence from the strong against the weak. In the 20th century, Venezuela, which was dominated by the oligarchy and the bourgeois state, the rich, the wealthy, produced a reversed type of miracle, we could say. Venezuela was the first exporter of oil from the beginning of the 1920s until the 1970s. One of the largest producers of petroleum in the world throughout all the 20th century. And when the 20th century ended, with the domination of the bourgeoisie, despite all the wealth, Venezuela had more than 70% poverty and 40% extreme poverty, misery, misery, misery. So that generated an explosion, a violent one. All explosions are violent. An explosion of the poor, to liberate themselves. We were remembering just 2 days ago in Caracas. You were there with us, with our people. 21 years ago, the people woke, arose in a big explosion. And as military we were used by the bourgeoisie to massacre the people, children, women, and older people. And then that awoke something in the young military folks, a consciousness of pain and then we joined with the people. We had two rebellions, military rebellions, popular (inaudible ). A revolution isn’t exactly peaceful. As you said it was relatively peaceful.

Cindy Sheehan: Yes, relatively, yeah

Hugo Chavez: Just like all true revolutions.

Cindy Sheehan: But doesn’t the violence of revolutions sometimes come from the counter-revolution? And the Bolivarian revolution that has transferred power and wealth to the people is an inspiration and has remained relatively peaceful.

Hugo Chavez: Yes, we got the power in a peaceful way.

Cindy Sheehan: Right.

Hugo Chavez: Exactly, and we have been able to maintain it relatively peaceful. We’ve never used violence. They’ve used it against us. The counter-revolution. So the central strategy of our peaceful and socialist revolution is to transfer the power to the people. I’m sure you have been able to see some of it with your own eyes, in the neighborhoods of Caracas.

Cindy Sheehan: Yes I have.

Hugo Chavez: We have made efforts were to help the people to be sovereign. When we talk about power, what are we talking about, Cindy? The first power that we all have is knowledge. So we’ve made efforts first in education, against illiteracy, for the development of thinking, studying, analysis. In a way, that has never happened before. Today, Venezuela is a giant school, it’s all a school. From children of one year old until old age, all of us are studying and learning.

And then political power, the capacity to make decisions, the community councils, communes, the people’s power, the popular assemblies.

And then there is the economic power. Transferring economic power to the people, the wealth of the people distributed throughout the nation. I believe that is the principal force that precisely guarantees that the Bolivarian revolution continues to be peaceful.

Cindy Sheehan: Wonderful. In a speech the other day, you said that the United States demonizes you, demonizes Venezuela and the revolution. I of course have seen it with my own eyes and have been a defender of you and Venezuela and the revolution. Why do you think the Empire makes such a concerted effort to demonize you?

Hugo Chavez: I think for different reasons. But I came to the conclusion there is one particular strong reason, a big reason. They are afraid, the Empire is afraid. The Empire is afraid that the people of the United States might find out about the truth, they are afraid that something like that could erupt on their own territory. A Bolivarian movement. Or a Lincoln movement. A movement of citizens, conscious citizens with the goal to transform the system. Imperial fear killed Martin Luther King. The only way to stop him was to kill him and repressing the people of the United States. So, why do they demonize us? They know - those who direct the Empire – they know the truth. But they fear the truth. They fear the contagious effect. They fear a revolution in the United States. They fear an awakening of the people in the United States. And so that’s why they do everything they can. And they achieve it, relatively, that a lot of sectors in the United States see us as devils. No one wants to copy the devil.

Cindy Sheehan: Right.

Hugo Chavez: Unless they are devils too. And the people aren’t devils. The people are the voice of God.

Cindy Sheehan: Well, one of the biggest names they call you in the United States is dictator. Can you explain to my listeners and the people, for the benefit of this documentary why you are not a dictator?

Hugo Chavez: In the first place, personally, I am against dictatorships. I’m an anti-dictator. We are here in Uruguay, in Montevideo. You know how many dictatorships were in this country. The Guerilla army. I’m an anti-Guerilla. In addition to that, from a political point of view, I’ve been elected one, two, three, four times, by popular vote. In Venezuela, we have elections all the time. Every year, we have elections in Venezuela. One time, Lula, the president of Brazil… when he was in Europe, someone asked him “Why are you friends with that dictator Chavez?” And Lula said a big truth: “In Venezuela, there is an excess of democracy. Every year there are elections. And if there aren’t any, Chavez invents them. Referendums, popular consultations, elections for governors, mayors. Right now, soon we are starting national assembly elections, this year. In 2012 there is going to be a presidential election again. What dictator is elected so many times? What dictator convenes referendums? I’m an anti-dictator. I am a revolutionary. A democratic revolutionary.

Cindy Sheehan: Well, I have witnessed this revolution. I’ve witnessed the empowerment of the people of Venezuela, which is very inspiring, because the people in the United States don’t feel this empowerment. I even rode the Metrocable, and I’m afraid of heights. But I went out to San Augustin and then walked down the steps and saw how that so-called dictatorship has made the life of the people much better here in Venezuela. Also in the commemoration of the Caracazo you announced that you will again going to run for president in 2012. You’ve come a long way, but there is still a long way to go. What do you still think needs to be accomplished as far as infrastructure and the needs of the people in Venezuela?

Hugo Chavez: To tell you in a mathematical way, despite everything we’ve done in education, healthcare, infrastructure, housing, employment, social security, etc., mathematically, I believe, of everything we’ve done and we have to achieve for the people, we have achieved about 10%. It’s been 200 years of abandonment. The people have been abandoned. All the wealth of the country was in the hands of the elite. We talk about the bicentennial cycle, 2010 to 2030, we have to work really hard. In every aspect, infrastructure etc. I hope that you, in a few years, won’t just go up in the metrocable in San Augustin, but all of Caracas is going to have metrocables, and everywhere, every place, housing, reconstruction in poor neighborhoods, the construction of new cities for the people and dignified housing, there is still a lot to do, to achieve what Simon Bolivar said. Bolivar taught us...

(Pres. Evo Morales comes in)

Hugo Chavez: Oh look! Evo is here. Evo, come and sit down! Bolivar taught us that the best government is the one that gives the people the best amount of happiness. That’s our goal. The best, the largest amount of happiness.

My friend Evo, the president of Bolivia, who just got here, he is an indigenous leader! Brother how are you?

Evo Morales: Good, good.

Cindy Sheehan: Presidente Morales. Mucho gusto. So nice to meet you.

Hugo Chavez (introduces Cindy): Cindy Sheehan. She is a fighter for peace, against the war. She is a US citizen. One of her sons died in Iraq. So, she’s interviewing us. And maybe you want to answer a question.

Evo Morales: (gives Indian blessing)

Hugo Chavez: To live well. It’s a Mala Indian philosophy. To live well, a good live. To live well, spiritually, intellectually, physically, that’s what it’s about.

Cindy Sheehan: Thank you, that’s what it should be about. I have one final question.

Thank you for your generosity. This has been really wonderful. Maybe Presidente Morales could have some input about this too. We see your rise to power in Venezuela as kind of a grassroots movement that has been spreading and has helped President Morales in Bolivia, and we see people all over South America taking back the power. Because the power belongs in the hands of the people. A couple of weeks ago in the United States, a man flew his airplane into the tax building in Austin, Texas. Did you hear about that?

Evo Morales/ Hugo Chavez: Yes.

Cindy Sheehan: There is much frustration with the system. And there is a lot of that frustration in the United States. But instead of flying planes into buildings we should find each other and organize. In the United States of course, we are now a system that is also for the elite, ruled by the elite, it’s a “corporatocracy”, it’s for the corporate elite. Of course, in my opinion, I believe the United States need the same grassroots revolution, power back to the people, that you’ve all had here in South America. Can you give us some words of inspiration to encourage us, to give us the courage and heart for a true revolutionary change?

Hugo Chavez: We were the same, dominated, persecuted, and also there was a lot of desperation, just like that man who flew the plane into the building. There is a lot of that, of lot of those impulses, suicidal tendencies. Now, that’s NOT the path. The path is consciousness, a conscious awakening. Evo was persecuted, from very young, I met him when he was an Assembly member, and they threw him out of Congress, and they persecuted him, they jailed him, a lot of his fellow strugglers died. And us too, we had our own experiences. A lot of our brothers died as well, a lot of us went to prison. But consciousness. That’s why you’re doing the right thing. The path is not to fly a plane into a building. It’s to create consciousness. And then the rest will come on its own. I’d like to take this moment to say hello to people of the United States. And us here in the South, we have a lot of faith. And the people in the North are going to wake up. Just like you have woken. Just like many have had an awakening. You can do great changes in the United States, and in a peaceful way, I hope. Because, what happens in the United States, those changes in the United States depend a lot...the future of the world depends on that a lot.

(Pres. Chavez addresses Pres. Morales) Evo, would you like to say something?

Cindy Sheehan: Please!

Evo Morales: I just finished a meeting with Eduardo Galliano.

Cindy Sheehan: Oh, I know him.

Evo Morales: He’s so inspirational with the people, about nature. Galliano is also going to the inauguration of Pepe Mujica. (Pres. Morales and Pres. Chavez talk to each other.) And he’s going to bring some strategies, proposals, and we’re going to have a meeting with Galliano and the cocoa workers ...

Cindy Sheehan: Oh. Very wonderful.

Evo Morales: To talk about equality and our experiences. The difficult things, how to unite us and to raise our consciousness. What you’re talking about. The power resides with the people. I was just with Commandante Borhez, Thomas Borhez from Nicaragua. We were talking about issues of consciousness in Peru, in Colombia, on how to build a big political movement. But the issue is unity. In my experience, first the (inaudible), the marginalized, we united first, the farmers and the indigenous. And from that it went on. Just like that unity, we need to do that with the political parties on the left and then the workers unite. Those are the forces that we have, the power that the people have. To get there is hard, you have to raise consciousness.

Cindy Sheehan: My documentary is called “We are all Americans”. It comes from when I was being interviewed on Fox News and Sean Hannity told me how could I meet with the anti-American dictator Hugo Chavez. And I said: ”But Sean, he is an American”. We are all Americans and that’s where the consciousness has to be raised and the unity has to come from in realizing that.

And so, it’s been my highest honor to sit with you, Presidente, thank you for your hospitality and that of Venezuela and to finally meet you. I was invited to Bolivia to help to support you for your recall, but I was running for Congress against Nazi policy in the United States. It was a bad time. I lost. (laughs) I didn’t win.

Hugo Chavez: But we will prevail.

Cindy Sheehan: We will be victorious. Thank you so much.

Hugo Chavez: We have to end, but I want to say something to you. Just about 5 days ago, we were in Cancun. We were on our way out from the hotel and the press was there, and there were some tourists - from California. So I went up to them and I said hi to a woman and her child and another woman. A lot of affection. It was spontaneous. And then I told my friends. I found tourists. I found US tourists. Older adults, young women, men, adolescents. I’ve met with them in Japan, Moscow, Beijing, in the Caribbean, everywhere in the world, in Buenos Aires. I’ve never felt one look of hate, but rather affection, so I think that despite everything, I believe the people of the United States in the depths of their hearts, they know how to appreciate where lies are and where the truth is. That’s why we have such hope. And here is my heart for those people of the United States. They call us anti-US-leaders, anti-American leaders, but we are not. We are anti-imperialist. But we love the people of the United States. We love humanity.

Cindy Sheehan: Muchas Gracias!

02-19-2011, 06:44 PM
By James Suggett
September 08, 2009 - Venezuelanalysis.com

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez walked the red carpet alongside film director Oliver Stone on Monday at the Venice Film Festival for the premiere of Stone's documentary, "South of the Border," which features interviews with Chavez and several other progressive leaders in South America.

Through one-on-one and group interviews with the presidents of Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Cuba, and Paraguay, the full-length documentary seeks to reveal the truth beyond the distorted portrayals of these leaders in the mainstream media in the U.S. and around the world.

"I think he is an extremely dynamic and charismatic figure. He is open and good-hearted, as well as a fascinating personality," Stone said of Chavez. "But when I return to the U.S. I only hear these stories about the 'dictator,' the 'bad man,' the 'threat to American society.'"

Stone added that "the film was a liberating experience," and that Chavez "was the first Latin American head of state who challenged the International Monetary Fund... for that I consider him a hero."

A large crowd of supporters held up signs, asked for autographs, and cheered for Chavez as he arrived at the festival. Greeting reporters, Chavez quoted the Uruguayan writer Mario Benedetti. "Like Benedetti said, the South exists too," he said. "In this festival the South is placed on the highest levels with Europe and the world, with high quality and a great respect for the truth."

"There is a renaissance underway in Latin America, and [Stone] has captured this renaissance, which is spiritual and moral first and foremost, with his camera and his genius," Chavez told an Italian news agency through a translator.

Stone said the South American leaders featured in the film have more in common than the press reports. "The press in America has divided the Latin American continent into the 'bad left' and the 'good left,'" he said. "They have labeled [Ecuadoran President Rafael] Correa as the bad left, along with [Bolivian President Evo] Morales and Chavez, and they call Lula [da Silva, the president of Brazil] the good left... I think these differences are erroneous."

Writer Tariq Ali, who collaborated with Stone to write the script of the documentary, said, "the idea is to show the U.S. public who these presidents are so they can decide, form their own opinion."

"In Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador, there are governments that are using their countries' resources to help the poorest people. In the past, the poor were invisible," Tariq Ali added.

A previous documentary about Venezuela that grabbed international attention was "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." Released in 2003, the film revealed key video footage from the April 2002 coup d'etat that the mainstream media had omitted in an apparent attempt to implicitly justify the coup.

02-19-2011, 06:48 PM
Noam Chomsky Meets with Chavez in Venezuela
By James Suggett August 28th 2009 - Venezuelanalysis.com

U.S. author, dissident intellectual, and Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology Noam Chomsky met for the first time with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Caracas and analyzed hemispheric politics during a nationally televised forum on Monday.

Chomsky is well known in Venezuela for his critiques of U.S. imperialism and support for the progressive political changes underway in Venezuela and other Latin American countries in recent years. President Chavez regularly references Chomsky in speeches and makes widely publicized recommendations of Chomsky's 2003 book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance.

"Hegemony or survival; we opt for survival," said Chavez in a press conference to welcome Chomsky. He compared Chomsky's thesis to that of German socialist Rosa Luxemburg in the early 1900s, "Socialism or Barbarism," and referred to Chomsky as "one of the greatest defenders of peace, one of the greatest pioneers of a better world."

Through an interpreter, Chomsky responded, "I write about peace and criticize the barriers to peace; that's easy. What's harder is to create a better world... and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created."

During Monday's forum, which was broadcast on the state television station VTV, Chomsky pointed out that the ongoing coup in Honduras, which began on June 28th, is the third coup the United States has supported in Latin America so far this century, following the coup against Chavez in 2002 and Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004.

The nearly finalized deal to allow the U.S. to increase its military presence on Colombian bases "is only part of a much broader effort to restore Washington's capacity for intervention," said Chomsky.

According to Chomsky, the region has the capacity to unite and form a "peace zone" in which foreign militaries are forbidden to operate. "Venezuela can help to advance this proposal, but it cannot do it alone," he said.

"The transformations that Venezuela is making toward the creation of another socio-economic model could have a global impact if these projects are successfully carried out," said the renowned author.

Aporrea.org, a popular Venezuelan news and pro-revolution analysis website, described Chomsky as oriented toward "libertarian socialism" and "vehemently anti-Stalinist" in an introduction to a recent interview in which Chomsky said U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy will be similar to that of the second administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush.

Chomsky addressed this issue during Monday's conference as well, commenting that Obama "could have much to offer Latin America if he wanted to, but hasn't given any signals that he does." He cited the U.S.'s indecisive posture toward the coup in Honduras as evidence.

Chomsky also addressed the media and freedom of expression in the U.S. "In the United States the socio-economic system is designed so that the control over the media is in the hands of a minority who own large corporations... and the result is that the financial interests of those groups are always behind the so-called freedom of expression," he said.

Chomsky said the growing disappointment with the Obama administration in the U.S. was predictable because the corporate media marketed Obama's presidential candidacy on the slogan of "Change We Can Believe In" but omitted concrete proposals for effective changes, and the Obama administration has since shown an incapacity to institute such changes.

Chomsky was accompanied in Caracas by the co-founder of South End Press and ZMagazine and system operator of ZCom, Michael Albert, and the co-founder and editor of Venezuelanalysis.com, sociologist Gregory Wilpert.
Source: Venezuelanalysis.com

02-19-2011, 08:25 PM
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised opens in 2001[nb 3][8] with footage of Chávez as he tours the country. Met with "popular enthusiasm", he speaks at rallies, decrying neoliberalism and the international community's attacks on his character.[9] The film outlines Chávez's rise to power, before covering his day-to-day routine and appearances on his television show, Aló Presidente, which includes a phone-in for citizens to speak with the president.[9] Chávez outlines his aspiration to be seen as a modern-day Bolívar.[8] Clips from Venezuelan and United States news reports demonstrate a "relentless campaign" against the president.[10]

Interviews with communities from both sides of the political divide indicate how Chávez is seen by the rich and poor.[10] The latter support his stated aim to redistribute the country's oil wealth;[11] the former fear totalitarianism and are worried Chávez will institute communism. In February 2002, the media war intensifies after Chavez takes control of PDVSA.[10] The film states that the company was previously run as a private interest for the benefit of a minority, despite being state-owned. Business leader Pedro Carmona and union boss Carlos Ortega are the main voices of the opposition. After the pair visit Washington, D.C., the CIA and the State Department express concern about Chávez's rule and stress the importance of Venezuela's oil. A Venezuelan general appears on private television to voice similar disquiet. Carmona appeals for a public protest at the offices of PDVSA.[12]

On 11 April, opposition protesters begin their march outside PDVSA's headquarters in Caracas; Chávez's supporters gather outside the presidential palace. The protest route is changed to take it to the palace; shots ring out and civilians are killed. The private media blames Chávez's supporters, citing footage that shows them shooting at opposition protesters from a bridge.[10] The narration states, "What the TV stations didn’t broadcast was [this camera angle], which clearly shows that the streets below were empty. The opposition march had never taken that route."[13] Later, the state television signal is cut; rumors circulate that the opposition has taken over the studio.[14] At the palace, members of the military high command demand Chávez's resignation, threatening to bomb the building. The president refuses to resign, but submits to their custody.[10] He is led away, and Carmona announces on television that a transitional government will be established.[14]

On 12 April, opposition leaders appear on private television, where they disclose their plan to unseat Chávez.[10] Carmona is sworn in as president while images play of unrest on the streets. Defying media censorship, Chávez's supporters disseminate the story that the president did not resign.[15] On 13 April, they gather to protest outside Miraflores,[16] while palace guards plot to retake the building. The guards take up key positions and, at a prearranged signal, take members of the new government prisoner.[17] The state television channel is relaunched and urges the army to back Chávez.[18] "Full military control" is returned to the Chávez administration and the president returns to the palace amid celebratory scenes.[10] Chávez makes an address in which he says it is fine to oppose him, but not the Constitution of Venezuela. The closing titles say Carmona fled to Miami while under house arrest, and that Ortega went into hiding, only reappearing to help lead the opposition after Chávez said there would be no repercussions. Most of the dissident generals, after being expelled from the army, fled to the US; others remained as part of the opposition.[19]

02-20-2011, 03:37 AM
Do you believe Stone is a journalist?

For info to be "GOOD" must it not also be true?

Or, is info still good as long as it backs up what you want to believe and the heck with truth?


02-20-2011, 04:42 AM
Critic's criticizms of some/all of theze films/docos hav been investigated and hav shown no substantial errors of fact.
Bias in its many forms of course probly exists aplenty.

02-20-2011, 05:17 AM
Chavez is the classic example of 'power corrupts'. The guy has changed from liberator to dictator.


02-20-2011, 06:55 AM
But liberation iz only 10% finished at prezent, Hugo sez.
But why not liberator and dictator.
If dictator, then Hugo givs dictatorship a good name.
There are more elections and voting in V than anywhere i think.

02-20-2011, 07:26 AM
That's funny.

JFK alone was an absolute travesty and a classic example of gonzo journalism pimped to the naive and the stupid as history.


02-20-2011, 07:29 AM
Who did he liberate?


02-20-2011, 04:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who did he liberate? LWW</div></div>The poor -- Liberation Faktor = 0.1 at prezent (hugo sez).
12yrs times 10 = 120yrs. Yep, Hugo the 1st can do it if He livs long'nuff.

02-20-2011, 04:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's funny. JFK alone was an absolute travesty and a classic example of gonzo journalism pimped to the naive and the stupid as history. LWW</div></div>dubb -- Stone admits that its not necessaryly non-fiktion.
"Stone described his fictionalized film as a "counter-myth" to the "fictional myth" of the Warren Commission".

I hav allways sayd that there hadtabe a plane involved -- i thort oswald woz a lone gunman -- but a plane meant a plot.
I woz amazed to find reference to Ferrie, a pilot -- i hav never seen this before.

wiki...... Allegations of involvement in the Kennedy assassinationOn the afternoon of November 22, 1963 — the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated and the day Marcello was acquitted in his deportation case — New Orleans private investigator Guy Banister and one of his employees, Jack Martin, were drinking together at a local bar. On their return to Banister's office, the two men got into a heated argument. According to Martin, Banister said something to which Martin replied, "What are you going to do — kill me like you all did Kennedy?" Banister drew his .357 magnum revolver and pistol-whipped Martin several times. Martin, badly injured, went by ambulance to Charity Hospital.[15][16]

In the ensuing days, Jack Martin told reporters and authorities that David Ferrie may have been involved in the assassination. Martin told the New Orleans police that Ferrie "...was supposed to have been the getaway pilot in the assassination."[17] He said that Ferrie had threatened Kennedy's life, even outlining plans to kill him, and that Ferrie may have taught Oswald how to use a rifle with a telescopic sight. Martin also claimed that Ferrie had known Lee Harvey Oswald from their days in the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol, and that he had seen a photograph, at Ferrie's home, of Oswald in a Civil Air Patrol group.[18]

Martin's accusations soon got back to Ferrie, who contacted several of his former Civil Air Patrol associates. Former cadet Roy McCoy told the FBI that "...Ferrie had come by looking for photographs of the cadets to see if Oswald was pictured in any photos of Ferrie's squadron."[19]

Jack Martin also told bail bondsman Hardy Davis that he had heard on television that Ferrie's New Orleans library card had been found in Oswald's possession when he was arrested in Dallas. Davis reported this to Ferrie's employer, the lawyer G. Wray Gill.[20] (In fact, no such library card was found among Oswald's possessions.)[21] Ferrie subsequently visited both Oswald’s former New Orleans landlady and a former neighbor about this report.[22] Ferrie was able to produce his library card for FBI agents who interviewed him on November 27, 1963.[23]

Martin also claimed that Ferrie had driven from New Orleans to Texas on the night of the assassination. (In fact, Ferrie and two friends drove 350 miles (560 km) to the Winterland Skating Rink in Houston, about 240 miles (390 km) from Dallas, that evening.) Ferrie said that "...he had been considering for some time the feasibility and possibility of opening an ice skating rink in New Orleans" and wanted to gather information on the ice rink business. "He stated that he introduced himself to [rink manager] Chuck Rolland and spoke with him at length concerning the cost of installation and operation of the rink."[24] However, Rolland said that he never spoke to Ferrie about running an ice rink. Rolland said that Ferrie had spent his time at the rink's pay phone, making and receiving calls.[25][26]

On November 25, Martin was contacted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Martin told the FBI that Ferrie may have hypnotized Oswald into assassinating Kennedy. The FBI considered Martin's evidence unreliable. Nevertheless, FBI agents interviewed Ferrie twice about Martin's allegations.[27] Ferrie claimed that in June 1963, he had been involved in an altercation with Martin, in which he had thrown Martin out of the office of lawyer G. Wray Gill.[28] The FBI also interviewed about twenty other people in connection with Martin's allegations. The FBI said that it was unable to develop a substantial case against Ferrie. (An inquiry by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, conducted a decade and a half later, concluded that the FBI's "...overall investigation of the 544 Camp Street issue at the time of the assassination was not thorough.")[29]

David Ferrie (second from left) and a teenaged Lee Harvey Oswald (far right) in a group photo of the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol in 1955 (click to enlarge)Some of this information reached Jim Garrison, the district attorney of New Orleans, who had become increasingly interested in the assassination after a chance meeting with Louisiana Senator Russell Long in late 1966. Garrison said that Long told him: "Those fellows on the Warren Commission were dead wrong. There's no way in the world that one man could have shot up John Kennedy that way."[30]

In December 1966, Garrison interviewed Jack Martin. Martin claimed that during the summer of 1963, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Lee Harvey Oswald, and a group of anti-Castro Cuban exiles were involved in operations against Castro's Cuba that included gun running activities and burglarizing armories.[31] Garrison would later write: "The Banister apparatus ... was part of a supply line that ran along the Dallas--New Orleans--Miami corridor. These supplies consisted of arms and explosives for use against Castro's Cuba."[31]

According to testimony by Banister's personal secretary, Delphine Roberts, Ferrie and Oswald were frequent visitors to Banister's office in 1963. She remembered Ferrie as "one of the agents." "Many times when he came into the office he used the private office behind Banister's, and I was told he was doing private work. I believed his work was somehow connected with the CIA rather than the FBI..."[32] The House Select Committee on Assassinations investigated Roberts' claims and said that "because of contradictions in Roberts' statements to the committee and lack of independent corroboration of many of her statements, the reliability of her statements could not be determined."[33]

As Garrison continued his investigation, he became convinced that a group of supposed right-wing fanatics, including Ferrie, Banister, and Clay Shaw, were involved in a conspiracy with elements of the CIA to kill John F. Kennedy. Garrison would later claim that the motive for the assassination was anger over Kennedy's attempts to obtain a peace settlement in both Cuba and Vietnam.[34][35] Garrison also believed that Shaw, Banister, and Ferrie had conspired to set up Oswald as a patsy in the JFK assassination.[36][37]

02-20-2011, 04:48 PM
So you believe it to be journalism even though you know that it isn't?


02-20-2011, 05:18 PM
I havnt seen jfk. But it would be very diffikult to tell how much good journalizm it had, az praps 99% iz probly footage of actors faces, and 88% of the words kumming out of thoze faces were probly written by writers.

But, wow, a pilot involved with oswald, wow.
I allways sayd that i koodnt understand why nobody had ever looked into the takeoffs and landings at the No2 Dallas airport -- i still dont.
It woz kleer to me that oswald woz going to catch a ride. But where would the plane hav gone. I thort Cuba. But that duznt make a lot of sense neither.

02-20-2011, 05:55 PM
Many Americans ... especially leftists and victims of public education ... believe "JFK" to be a true recitation of history.

"NIXON" is another of Stone's gonzo documentaries ... and the same people believe that Nixon actually had the military willing to back him if he chose to stay in power against the COTUS.


02-20-2011, 06:17 PM
Yeah, i would hav sayd that the military might hav sidelined nixon, or worse, not back him.

02-20-2011, 06:18 PM
Hey Mac.
Your killing my eyes. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

02-20-2011, 08:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Many Americans ... especially leftists and victims of public education ... believe "JFK" to be a true recitation of history.

"NIXON" is another of Stone's gonzo documentaries ... and the same people believe that Nixon actually had the military willing to back him if he chose to stay in power against the COTUS.

LWW </div></div>

Stone's JFK was at least 95% accurate in portraying evidence found in the WC's evidentiary volumes. Evidence, btw, that few who are not historical students of those events have ever heard about, but which are indeed the eye witness testimonies taken by and recorded in the WC evidentiary volumes.

When he strayed into a theoretical scenario, these scenes were typically shown in sepia tone filter, showing they were the theories of Garrison that were speculative, although sometimes grounded in reasonable deductions.

Was Garrison right? We cannot be sure, but portraying Garrison's theories as Garrison's theories is not falsifying history, but instead accurately portraying what he thought, and usually with the directorial clue from the sepia tone treatment that these are not facts in evidence, but Garrison's take on what likely happened.

02-21-2011, 02:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stone's JFK was at least 95% accurate in portraying evidence found in the WC's evidentiary volumes. </div></div>

So if the spoon contains only 5% lies, and those being the critical points since the fact that JFK was murdered in Dallas in 1963 blah blah blah are incontestable, that passes your smell test?

Actually ... I'm not surprised by that.

And, BTW, what part did the Obregonn-human hybrids play in all this?


02-21-2011, 02:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When he strayed into a theoretical scenario, these scenes were typically shown in sepia tone filter, showing they were the theories of Garrison that were speculative, although sometimes grounded in reasonable deductions. </div></div>

Words mean things.

A "THEORY" is the hypothesis which best describes and predicts the observable reality.

What Garrison presented was a hypothesis, just as I can hypothesize that interdimensional travelers on a joy killing spree did it. My hypothesis cannot be proven wrong ... but it has nothing which would advance it to the level of accepted theory. Neither did Garrison's.

Words are best when used by their correct definition.


02-21-2011, 02:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was Garrison right? We cannot be sure, but portraying Garrison's theories as Garrison's theories is not falsifying history, but instead accurately portraying what he thought, and usually with the directorial clue from the sepia tone treatment that these are not facts in evidence, but Garrison's take on what likely happened. </div></div>

Yes we can be sure and no he wasn't correct.

Yes it is true that representing Garrison as a prosecutor with a hypothesis that was found to be woefully deficient upon close examination would not have been falsifying history.

Sadly, that isn't what Stone did.

Stone represented Garrison as the lone speaker of truth against a machine which had committed murder and gotten away with it.