The right wing has already done what is suggested - they are trying to make Chavez the straw man for the opposition. And most ofthe corporate media seem to be going along with it.

See for example,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/22/11130/1428

And Chavez and some on the left are making their job oh-so easy.

Tectonic Geopolitical Change - Chavez is toast

I believe that the rise in the price of oil above $50.00 per barrel has suddenly made Venezuela the Nation with more viable oil reserves than any other.

While oil was selling below $50.00 per barrel most of the Venezuelan oil reservers were not economically exploitable. Now that the price of oil is hovering around $65.00 per barrel there are more viable oil resources in Venezuela than in any other country including those in the Middle East.

This shift in power is only slowly manifesting itself in International Policy. Slowly but surely.

I think that a huge effort by the United States is underway
to try to sway the upcoming election (in December I think?)
in Venezuela against Chavez. The reason is not that he is not democratically elected but that he has reached out to
Cuba (a bete noir for the US), as well as to Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Iran, Haiti, and most threatening to the United States - China.

Ironically I think the US military is stretched too thin
to overtly do another preemptive war at the present time.

But whatever can be achieved by US Foreign Policy, covertly to destabilize Venezuela will surely eventuate in the next few months.

Already huge sums have been given by the US Aid people to various anti Chavez groups in Venezuela and one may expect actions similar to the Allende/Pinochet coup if necessary. Expoect Fox news et. al sto start dumping on Venezuela.

There is also some training connection between the Venezuelan military and the United States Army, which is also reminiscent of the General Pinochet coup in the 70s.

If I were a life insurance company I would not sell Chavez any life insurance right now.

Will Chavez withstand the pressure from the United States?

I doubt it. I do not think China is willing to really back him and that is what it would take for him to survive in the long run. I think what he would need to "tip the balance" is:

1.) for Mexico to go the Obrador way, and it does not look like that right now, and;

2.) for both Argentina and Brazil to be ready to align themselves against the United States. This is very unlikely in my estimation; and;

3.) For China to risk its main export market in the United States.

I tend to think therefore that Chavez is an accident waiting to happen and that he like Che appeared on the scene before his time.

For all these reasons I find it surprising that Mother Jones is sponsoring anti-Chavez propaganda.

Tectonic Geopolitical Change - Chavez is toast

I believe that the rise in the price of oil above $50.00 per barrel has suddenly made Venezuela the Nation with more viable oil reserves than any other.

While oil was selling below $50.00 per barrel most of the Venezuelan oil reservers were not economically exploitable. Now that the price of oil is hovering around $65.00 per barrel there are more viable oil resources in Venezuela than in any other country including those in the Middle East.

This shift in power is only slowly manifesting itself in International Policy. Slowly but surely.

I think that a huge effort by the United States is underway
to try to sway the upcoming election (in December I think?)
in Venezuela against Chavez. The reason is not that he is not democratically elected but that he has reached out to
Cuba (a bete noir for the US), as well as to Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Iran, Haiti, and most threatening to the United States - China.

Ironically I think the US military is stretched too thin
to overtly do another preemptive war at the present time.

But whatever can be achieved by US Foreign Policy, covertly to destabilize Venezuela will surely eventuate in the next few months.

Already huge sums have been given by the US Aid people to various anti Chavez groups in Venezuela and one may expect actions similar to the Allende/Pinochet coup if necessary. Expoect Fox news et. al sto start dumping on Venezuela.

There is also some training connection between the Venezuelan military and the United States Army, which is also reminiscent of the General Pinochet coup in the 70s.

If I were a life insurance company I would not sell Chavez any life insurance right now.

Will Chavez withstand the pressure from the United States?

I doubt it. I do not think China is willing to really back him and that is what it would take for him to survive in the long run. I think what he would need to "tip the balance" is:

1.) for Mexico to go the Obrador way, and it does not look like that right now, and;

2.) for both Argentina and Brazil to be ready to align themselves against the United States. This is very unlikely in my estimation; and;

3.) For China to risk its main export market in the United States.

I tend to think therefore that Chavez is an accident waiting to happen and that he like Che appeared on the scene before his time.

For all these reasons I find it surprising that Mother Jones is sponsoring anti-Chavez propaganda.

Chavez is no more mediocre or thug-like than our own GWBush, but he does have a sense of humor. His visceral take on our criminally-liable president-select is forgivable, after all, given the verbal abuse to which he has been subjected to, the threats of assasination (without objection by Bush). Appropriate behavior? What is appropriate about Bush scolding Arab nations, ticking them off one by one like naughty school children in the world's single most presitigous forum, the U.N., as forlorn as it is. Bush's tongue lashing,his yelling tone, his profound hypocrisy is dangerous. Chavez may be accused of losing his demeanor, but he is not dangerous, nor is he bound for the Hague as is our own Bush, if there's any Justice in this world.

Mediocrity or thug--he's a choirboy compared to the behavior of the Justices of the US Supreme Court in US v. Watts (1997), where Justice Stevens's dissent reads, "It is difficult to square this explicit statutory command to impose incremental punishment for each of the "multiple offenses" of which a defendant "is convicted" with the conclusion that Congress intended incremental punishment for each offense of which the defendant has been acquitted."

I can't understand why supposedly sane people are running around calling Chavez a "thug." Everything I heard or read about in his speech was certainly 100% accurate. Heck, I smelled those sulphur fumes all the way out here. Where is the evidence that he's some kind of autocrat? I just don't see it.

I was dismayed that Mother Jones would join the Bush/neocon cabal in its effort to divert public attention from the statements made by Chavez and the President of Iran before the United Nations Assembly about Bush's goals and accomplishments.. I expected Rove and company to demonize him, but not MoJo. The speechs were made in the only manner that would obtain international press coverage. Had they delivered their message in a diplomatic manner, the main stream press and probably Mother Jones would have totally ignored them. So much for the messenger.

If you want to argue with the content of their remarks, maybe you should read Noam Chomsky’s “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” and Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire.

One final note. Rice, Bolton, and Snow replied by indicating their contempt for the speaker. They did not deny the truthfulness of the characterization of the Bush/neocon foreign policy agenda.

For the first time in God knows how long, I am terribly dissapointed in MaJones.

Mediocrity or thug? Or both? How about none of the above?

The post immeditely preceding mine says it all, and eloquently.

Chavez may not be the best and the brightest and he is not very refined, SO WHAT? And if he is sometimes crude and vulgar as he speaks out against the criminals in charge of U.S. foreign policy, that is his prerogative. I would be more alarmed at the stupidity, emotional instabiity, arrogance and religious delusions of this texas hick in the White House who arrived there through trickery and manipulation of elections; surely NOT a very democratic process. His vulgar swagger, hate-mongering speeches based on instilling fear,advocacy of illegal torture and violation of the Constitution are far more frightening than anything Hugo Chavez can possibly do or say. You may call Chavez a clown, but it is Bush who is the real danger to the people of the United States and the world.

President Hugo Chavez made my day.

As for Representative Rangel: are only American citizens on American soil entitled to free speech?

President Hugo Chavez made my day.

As for Representative Rangel: are only American citizens on American soil entitled to free speech?

It probably doesn't become any of us to cast aspersions upon other people or nations; having said that, I can see good and bad in all of us.. both people and nations. A lot of the time a nation does the right thing for all of the wrong reasons and sometime it is just the opposite. The world backed Red China against Tawain in the hope that China would become democratic and of course there was money to be made by the worlds corporations. And we could look under our own "rug" to see that we as a nation have done some dastardly deeds. Most of the wrongs done to other human beings was done either by or because of Religon, or because of Greed; alot of the time it was both.

I was inspired by Hugo Chavez' courage to stand up, be honest, while maintaining his dignity and soul by validating the value of human life and a better future for our children. That, to me was his message, war, bombs and invasions are not holy, not justified and that we all can choose to no longer go along with the insanity. I wish him the best, safety and continued opportunities to have his voice and opinions heard.

I was inspired by Hugo Chavez' courage to stand up, be honest, while maintaining his dignity and soul by validating the value of human life and a better future for our children. That, to me was his message, war, bombs and invasions are not holy, not justified and that we all can choose to no longer go along with the insanity. I wish him the best, safety and continued opportunities to have his voice and opinions heard.

Comrades: It was not the slide in pump prices the kicked the ratings of our President up a few points....
No Comrades it was President Hugo Chavez, ripping George a new A-hole that quickly caused those defecting from Bush to form-up there wagons in a circle, and prepare to do battle with Hugo's supporters. President Chavez
has assumed the leading role
in the struggle against Imperialism, Fidel carried on
for 50 years and is entitled
to step out of the leading
position. Don't expect an U.S.sponsored overthrow of Hugo, Fidel is his advisor and has already vetted all those close to Hugo, he will be running a very tight ship.
Thats how I see it
Jesse Kern

I listened to excerpts of Chavez's speech this AM. I'd applaud anyone with the moral character to stand up to American imperialism.

At least he said what so many of us believe. Maybe not the most elegant delivery, but certainly going to raise some eyebrows and maybe that's what's needed, instead of cowing to US economic and military power.

Why have certain progressive publications lately begun drifting toward condoning the irrationality of the Bush Administration? You don't have to be an extremist or a leftist to consider George W. Bush to be in league with the devil. What about this administration makes you think he isn't? What has he said that turned out to have a shred of honesty to it? I read Chavez' speech and it was right on the mark.

It has become in vogue among certain progressive columnists to start labeling those of us who don't believe the government's conspiracy theory of 9/11 as wingnuts. Yet no one yet has come up with a trace of evidence a passenger plane hit the Pentagon.

We're currently at the mercy of an illegitimate administration that will stop at nothing to push its evil agenda down our throats. An administration that illegally started two wars, killed hundreds of thousands of people and is slowly dismantling the US Constitution.

And you're upset with Chavez because he sees this and calls a devil a devil. This type of column isn't worthy of a great magazine like Mother Jones

Why have certain progressive publications lately begun drifting toward condoning the irrationality of the Bush Administration? You don't have to be an extremist or a leftist to consider George W. Bush to be in league with the devil. What about this administration makes you think he isn't? What has he said that turned out to have a shred of honesty to it? I read Chavez' speech and it was right on the mark.

It has become in vogue among certain progressive columnists to start labeling those of us who don't believe the government's conspiracy theory of 9/11 as wingnuts. Yet no one yet has come up with a trace of evidence a passenger plane hit the Pentagon.

We're currently at the mercy of an illegitimate administration that will stop at nothing to push its evil agenda down our throats. An administration that illegally started two wars, killed hundreds of thousands of people and is slowly dismantling the US Constitution.

And you're upset with Chavez because he sees this and calls a devil a devil. This type of column isn't worthy of a great magazine like Mother Jones

I find it outrageous and very, very disapointing to have the main MoJo blogger align himself with Rove and his ilk in bashing the only head of government with enough cojones to stand up to the American imperialists.

I know it does not make us happy to think of the UN as useless as it stands right now, but nobody said the truth will be painless. The UN is in need of reform and at least Chavez is in favor of it.

All in all, it seems to me even the most liberal of liberals is liable to be conservative at one point or another. Mr Brooks, I suggest you revisit this issue with urgency, before you lose your reputation with MoJo's progressive readership.

Sincerely,

Marcela Wagner

By the way, I forgot to mention how I have always thought of Bush as the anti-christ. I am not religious, but I have studied the bible in some depth and this man meets the exact description of the anti-christ. To say nothing of the current pope, in the role of the whore. Fascinating!

I am not very happy with Mother Jones tonight ! Although Hugo Chavez is not Harvard Graduate the essence of what he said about W is correct.
In Canada today, I received my Walrus magazine. In it Marci MacDonald authored an article describing how our Prime Minister Stephen Harper is being supported by the same right wing religious zealots that helped bring Bush to the Presidency. I`m hoping this country is not as naive as the electorate in the USA.

Methink that MOJO has been infiltrated by the Israel Lobby!

Indeed, I have not seen anything about the Gaza catastrophe nor the Palestinian plight lately (when it matters most).

This latest Chavez stuff is yet another example of neocon bias.

Unless MOJO is now a bona fide member of "Bush's useful idiots" ...

What a pity!

To Julian Brookes & Marc Cooper (whom Julian 'knows better than most'):

Now I'll bet you just wanted to provoke discussion with those inane, obtuse comments of yours, didn't you? Well done, I didn't think you could have been serious.
What moral vision did Chavez offer for the poor? Offered to all of us poor was the vision of a world where people are finally becoming conscious of the destructive forces of imperialism and capitalism, of people now standing up and shouting for equality, respect, and sovereignty after so many decades of domination, exploitation, and pillage of their resources. That vision, and the righteous forcefulness with which he flayed Bush's lies, hypocrisy, and arrogance for all the world to see, gives all of us the light of hope.

I listened to the entire speech by Hugo Chavez in Spanish and I agree with everything he said about Bush, as well as the rest. It was so good I went and found the speech he made a year earlier, and it was even better. His criticisms of the UN (unlike Bolton's) are constructive. The rest of the world (the South) has nothing to gain by keeping the UN in New York, and the Chavez proposal to move it to Venezuela (or somewhere else) outside of the grip of the United States is simply common sense.
I wonder what Julian Brookes and Marc Cooper are talking about. I smell sulfur. How can they call Chavez's commitment to democracy "pretty tenuous" in comparison to Bush's? How many countries' elected governments has Venezuela crushed? Read Chomsky!
And before posting an article denigrating a far greater man than the sickening, snide, and snickering Bush, Mother Jones should weigh the consequences.

What Chavez said in both English and, more particularly Spanish, despite the somewhat poor translation, made a great deal more sense than the commentary in MJ apparently written by Zionists for Bush. In fact, he understated what he could have said. I just read another letter from a physician to the President of Argentina where he lambasts him for going along with version ninety-five of the Brady bond scam in Argentina.

I was married to a Peruvian and spent a lot of time down there and I am embarrassed by what my country has done behind my back. Truman was right. Americans have gone unscathed by the horrific, rapacious and sleazy behavior of our governments because most countries like some Americans personally. We are about to experience what we, unfortunately, deserve for not keeping our politicians, meglomaniacal rich folk and solipsistic religious leaders under better control. We should have been keeping an eye on them. We should have been asking why there isn't enough money for social programs when kazillions were pouring into the Treasury and disappearing. That's what we should have been doing instead of blaming the poor for being poor (ala Reagan) and cutting their benefits and permitting good jobs to be sent to China, India and etc. Nope, we sat there thinking:"why wasn't that union member getting a degree in finance? Didn't he or she know that this couldn't last forever? Why aren't those welfare mothers working six jobs AND going to technical school?"

One thing that Chavez said that we all need to take to heart is this: "It is suicide to profer free market policies as the solution for the very social ills that they themselves have created." What is stupid about that remark? What is ego-maniacal about the truth? If Mother Jones wants my money, they had better hire better writers, pander less to the Bush administration and stop accepting grant money from rightwing fascists.

Mother must be spinning in her grave! If this is the best of the MoJo Blog then the MoJoBlog has simply joined the ranks of all the other pseudo-progressive groups in the US. It is disappointing, to say the least, to see MoJo promoting this silliness.

Chavez may be abrasive, but how can a progressive argue with his agenda?

As for claims that he subverts free speech, I prefer to believe Greg Grandin, professor of Latin American history at New York University, who (on Thursday's DemocracyNow broadcast) protested that nothing could be further from the truth. Remember, despite being the elected leader of Venezuela, Chavez does NOT control that country's well-oiled corporate media, and that explains why most of us in the U.S. are exposed only to anti-Chavez propaganda.

What I'm loving in particular is the likelihood that Venezuela will become a member of the 12-member U.N. Security Council, pre-empting any pre-emptive strikes from "El Diablo."

This is a sad day when I find this type of garbage on MotherJones.

Why not try reading the Chomsky book Chavez was referring to in his speech. We are talking about the survival of our species! With Bush at the helm of this catastrophe, he appears a devilish figure indeed.

I have my reservations about Chavez (specifically some the racist and sexist remarks he made toward Condi Rice) but don’t just buy into the U.S. media’s straw man image of him.

For some other representations, here is a link to a very interesting documentary about the U.S. backed attempted overthrow of him: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+will+not+be+televised

~S

So, Mother Jones (the rag) has turned its back on Mother Jones, the person. This article is very disappointing. Chavez was spot on, and you know it. If one tempers one's criticism, plays nice, plays by the rules (rules set by Empire) then the message is worthless. If one steps outside the rules and speaks truth to power, then one is mediocre or a thug. Does not leave much choice. This is not the first time I have see Mother Jones the mag turn its back on what Mother Jones stood for. You are sliding over to cheerladers for empire.

Mother Jones is rolling in her grave.

Hugo Chavez was not wrong at all, everything was factual and accurate. He spoke truth to the usual bullshit 'we the people' have to listen to everyday.
I hope the south american countries can align themselves and fight for their people instead of US corporations, all of whom hate people and love only profits. And the pope supports the Bush BS. Wow it just amazes me.
'We the people have lost all control of our government so I hope that the south american countries by becoming self aligned will serve as a 'system of checks and balances' against our imperial Bush/Repub government and counter balance their unfettered use of power. Our government is totally out of control hopefully some of the other nations of the world such as Russia, China, Iran and Syria as well as the European countries can stand up to the asshole government that has INVADED our country and help maintain sme balance of power against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. ad nauseam.
The Bush/Bolton conspiracy hates the UN so it should move out of the US and to a south American or European country.
I laughed and enjoyed Chavez's arguments. He is absolutely correct no christian country would be doing what the antichrist from texas would do.
Has MOJO suddenly become a nazi-fascist neocon organ. Get rid of this kind of spin writing and get back to the TRUTH.
Has MOJO finally succumbed to the incessant radical right wing lies and BS that we Americans are being force fed everyday by the Bush admin and the MSM.

Unfortunately some middle east countries are already lost, Egypt, India and Pakistan come to mind.

Bush frightens me not Chavez or Castro or the muslim countries. We have an immense danger right here in America and the DHS cannot protect 'we the people' from the danger from within.

I don't read the MoJo Blog too often, but I saw a link to this page at another site and decided to drop in to get your take on the Chavez speech.

So what do I find but a load of tripe! Julian Brookes and Marc Cooper -- who the hell are these guys, a couple of Bush appeasers???

Every word Chavez said was true, and he said it in a way to make an impact, to be remembered and talked about for years to come. Plus, he worked wonders for Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival -- have you noticed the softcover has shot up to #1 on Amazon? Even the hardcover makes the list, a little farther down. I only hope all the people who are buying it actually read it.

The only "blustering buffoon" I saw was our own Torturer-in-Chief, His Swaggering Decidership, George W. Bush.

I pray that Venezuela gets its seat On the Security Council. Amen.

I have subscribed to the print edition for many years but I will not renew when it expires

CERTAINLY A GOOD EXAMPLE OF CYNICAL US COLONIALISM. WHY THE DOGS ARE BARKING AT US WHO WERE ONCE OUR PET?
AFTER THIS ONE SHOULD APPRICIATE THE INTELECTUAL LIES POWEL, BUSH CIA UTTER FOR WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION. HOWEVER, MEDIOCRE THAT CAN BE FOR YOU BLUE BLOOD ECCENTRICS, REST OF THE WHOLE WORLD IS APPRECIATING WHAT HE HAS SAID AND CONGRATULATING FOR HIS BRAVE AND BRAZEN REMINDER TO UNCONTROLLED SUPER POWER. THE WORLD ALSO KNOW THAT FATE WILL BE DIFFERENT FROM SADDAM BECAUSE HE IS NOT MUSLIM (AN EASY SCAPEGOAT).

Chavez is a good indicator of whether a person is a real progressive or a fake progressive posting their disgust at him because of spurious religious, Bushie, warmongering, greed, partisan or other anti-future brainwashing. Everything Chavez said at the UN speach was pointed in the correct direction if one understands the specifics of his poor supporters. His dissing of Bush is accurate given that Bush/Cheney are the world's worst defacto terrorists because they have killed more innocent civilians than any other current head of state. The USA should be helping the world's poor instead of killing them.

one important part of chavez's speech that is overlooked by most of the media is that chavez accused the US of staging terrorist attacks and only 'fighting' terrorism when it wants to. he used the 1973 blowing up of a cuban airliner by the cia, and the subsequent protection of the admittted terrorist plotter. truth to power. chavez was magnificent,even in english. (my spanish is horrible but you can hear the passion behind the speech far more clearly). notice how the white house did NOT deny any of the substance of the speech and the press is so focused on the devil remark (which seemed like a bit of a joke to me if you watch the video) to even be bothered with the message of the speech.

if only u.s. poiticians would stand up to the neocons like that!

and julian-- did you even bother to listen to or read the speech at all?? its clear to me that you didn't since you have focused on the fake outrage at calling bush a devil and now are calling chavez a 'thug' for making a speech?? I would appreciate a higher standard of journalism that qouting from someone (cooper) who can't be 'bothered' to even quote the speech he is writing an article about.

Please read my blog, SEN. JOHN McCAIN TELLS LETTERMAN, to understand the reasons why vitriolic articles like the Mother Jones article (above) aid and abet the Bushites and pretenders to the throne like John McCain. Criticism is better when balanced with the truth. I'll be posting the full text of Chavez' speech with comments later at truthpeeler.com.

Why is Mother Jones carrying sewage for the globalization thugs and this blighted administration?? Have you lost your minds? Hugo just offered FREE heating oil to poor Americans--in MORE THAN DOUBLE the amount of last year!--and the best choice you can offer is "mediocrity or thug" name-calling?!?

Please cancel my subscription.

And wake up...

Are you seriously saying George Bush is NOT the devil? The United Nations needs a wake up call and between Chavez and Ahmadinejad, it got a good one this week!

Where Goeth Hugo Chavez: Mediocrity or Thug? (Or Both)
by Michael O'McCarthy on Sat 23 Sep 2006 11:25 AM CDT | Permanent Link | Cosmos

A Response to: Mother Jones’ Must Read:
Hugo Chavez: Mediocrity or Thug? (Or Both?)
MoJo Blog Vol. 4, Issue 38, September 22, 2006

The elitist, espresso café, white American faux Left’s spokespersons, Kos, Cooper and Julian Brookes join the New Axis of American Idiocy, Rush, Joe, Nancy, Charlie. Shit, name any of them! They’re at it again!

Jesus, Mary and Joseph: which part of Chavez's broadside against the mentally ill, Holy Roller, Conevangelical, Messianic, Self-Will Run Riot, Born One More Fucking Time, Christian, George W., (I wanna die right now and sit on the right side of Jesus,) Bush didn't they like?

That Chavez called him "The Devil?"

Are you just nuts? Chavez is a Catholic from a predominantly Catholic region. Did you perhaps want a discourse based on Hinduism?

And as for Marc Cooper’s “blistering attack,” as hyped by, God Save Us from these fucking creepy, elitist, faux-socialist from the tome of the New American Left, Mother Jones, re, Julian Brookes, they thus sum up their take in the words of LA’s, yep, LA as the citadel of the American Left:

Marc Cooper:
If one ever had doubts that Hugo Chavez is at best an intellectual mediocrity (if not a thug) they should forever be confirmed by his speech Wednesday before the United Nations.

What Chavez said was:

"First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it. Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] "

"It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet. The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation."

"It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house."

This in comparison to The Dubya who is some kind of wanna-be, Charleston ‘Moses’ Heston’s God Loving, Evil Doer hating, ranting extremist, demagogic, personification of “intellectual mediocrity?”

When Bush thought he was being asked to give a synopsis of Camus’ THE STRANGER, a book allegedly given him by Laura on vacation that he allegedly read, he damn near stroked! Wherein, Chavez has read Chomsky and knows its thesis.

As for Chavez’s comment on Bush’s need of a psychiatrist, shit, these intellectual dynamos of the Left need to read THE PEOPLE OF THE LIE by M. Scott Peck, author of THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED.

Peck’s post-psychiatric, neo-Christian explorations led him to see perfectly into the warped behavioral mode that shapes Bush. That is, George W. Bush, the Dry Drunk President:

"Evil ---

Scott Peck discusses evil in his book People of The Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil. He gives some identifying characteristics for evil persons. Discussed below are Scott Peck's views.

Evil is described by Scott Peck as "militant ignorance". In this it is close to the original Judeo-Christian concept of "sin" as a consistent process that leads to failure to reach one's true goals.

An evil person:
· Projects his or her evils and sins onto others and tries to remove them from others
· Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
· Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency
· Is unable to think from other people's viewpoints.

Most evil people realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the locus of evil on others. Evil is an extreme form of what Scott Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder.

Chavez’s reference to Bush’s mental illness and his alcoholism is the FIRST time that any notable, political personage has addressed Bush’s number one, untreated, toxic malady. (*)

The mainstream press refuses to challenge Bush on the state of his recovery from this disease. Unlike if he had brain cancer or Alzheimer’s. Both the press and the American elected body are either in denial or enablers of Bush and other’s addictive behaviors, for both political and cultural-economic reasons. (*) See:

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/MichaelOMcCarthy/_archives/2006/8/25/2264423.html

More from Mother Jones: (The grand dame of American working class organizing must be literally having a spiritual metamorphosis in her grave – that is if you are New Age enough to see a synthesis between subject and object in life):

“Suffice it to say it (Chavez’s speech,) was juvenile showboating of the worst kind. And while it was chock full of applause and laugh lines as Chavez ripped at Bush, the Empire, the Fascists, the Assassins, the Israelis and the UN itself, it was -- in the end-- a completely vapid exercise. “

So, Hugo was having fun, dissing Bush!

If you were at the end of Dubya’s extremist militarist actions, which by the way go unbridled by the forces of the American opposition, comic relief directed at that Chaplinesque caricature of the US President would be worth every second. Apparently the 3rd world dominated United Nation’s body got the joke while the primping white Left here didn’t. Uh, surprise!

But why attack Chavez on style, or form of attack on US Imperialism and the Devil? Because the Left cannot attack him on the progress he champions in Venezuela:

From the interview done by Richard Gott
Interviewed By Julian Brookes
October 4, 2005

(Gott, who has been reporting on Latin America for four decades, is a former correspondent and features editor for the London Guardian. He’s the author of Guerrilla Movements in Latin America and Cuba: A New History, among other books. He talked to Mother Jones recently by phone from his home in London.)

This is gott’s response to the charge that Chavez is an autocrat:

Brookes: The standard US line on Chavez is that his instincts are essentially autocratic. What do you make of that?

Gott: I think it's entirely invented. It's true that he is a military figure who expects his orders to be obeyed. The two items that are endlessly picked on by the opposition are [his reforms of] the media and the judiciary. The judiciary was an unbelievable mess under the ancien regime. It has been reformed, they have managed to get control of it, and I think you'd expect any government to do that if it's building on the ruins of the past. You're not going to get a situation where the corrupt judges of the past have an influence over the system. You can call it raison d'etat if you like, but it seems to me to be a perfectly understandable measure for the government to take. I seem to remember that Franklin D. Roosevelt did something similar in the 1930s.
The complaint about the media law is a completely ridiculous red herring. All they've done is introduce some legislation that's probably less repressive than what we have in Western Europe. It's really the modern way of introducing a certain amount of regulation into television in a world that had hitherto been totally unbridled. And indeed anyone knows who's been there the media are having a field day and are about 80 percent anti-Chavez. So there isn't much to complain about there.

Regarding the revolution in Venezuela and the Chavez’s ideology Gott reported:

What I find interesting about him is his open-mindedness and his willingness to experiment. He arrived on the scene without any dogmatic ideas. One of his principal heroes is Simon Rodriguez, this extraordinary 19th century figure who was Simon Bolivar's tutor. He had this wonderful slogan that Latin America had to be "original." He had a debate with Bolivar, who was a child of the European Enlightenment, influenced by the French Revolution, and who wanted to import a lot of those ideas into Latin America. Simon Rodriguez said, No, we can't import them wholesale into Latin America; we have to think of original ways of dealing with the problems of our continent on our own. I think Chavez has taken that to heart. He's always casting around for ideas. He's one of the most open-minded Latin American leaders I've ever come across. Whenever you see him he says, "What's new? What's happening? What books should I be reading?"

"…I think that (bringing young people and the masses of the poor into the political system from where in the past they have been excluded,) may turn out to be Chavez's most significant achievement. In a way that's what made the old, elitist opposition unhappy -- this democratization of the country, bringing in this underclass, even a lumpen class, into the body politic. A lot of the programs, the projects he's developed—not just the health programs but the education programs, too—they're really aimed at the 16-25 age group, the young people who weren't getting into college or into training. He's making sure that a huge amount of money will be spent on this one generation to get them into education, into work, and essentially

But MoJo’s Brookes does ask a serious question of Chavez’s presentation and I will let Chavez’s words respond:

“What sort of moral vision or leadership of behalf of the world's poor was voiced by the blustering buffoon of Caracas?”

Chavez:

"Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

"As Sylvia Rodriguez (ph) (sic) says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

"What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

"We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

And as for his denunciation of a United Nations dominated by the veto armed forces of modern, corruption, China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, why question that? Would anyone of sane mind want to live in countries controlled by their rulers?

But Chavez, unlike the liberal apologists for the bastardized UN and the paranoid, One World Is The Enemy freaks of the Right, gets it right:

"We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations."

These upper-middle class, Euro-American Leftists have their heads so far up the Kos-Clinton collective rectum that what they really want is just what the fucking reactionary Right says they wants: A Starbucks Friendly-Latte-Democracy - ummm preferably vanilla in color (inside or out,) well educated and hip, in a metro-urbane Blackberry-laptop oriented environ, comfortably situated in a black outfit, with spiky, unruly appearing hair. Oh, and being the “opposition face” on network/cable talk shows with a constant added emphasis rising in every word at the end of every paragraph! (Oh, Arianna, can you please never ever send that creepy woman out to talk with us on TV again?)

The reality is: There are serious problems building a revolutionary movement both in the Belly of the Beast and in the insurgent world. A socialist analysis within an organizing, working people’s movement is difficult to come by.

Re: No matter what one thinks of Castro-Cuba, the reality is that Cuba had little choice other than being either re-occupied by the US Corporate-Mafia combine, or to go into a War Communist model, thus, the Marxist-Leninist model with Soviet banking. That it has survived a social holocaust is a miracle. That it requires democratic reform is obvious; post-Castro one hopes that it will evolve; but not if the Imperialist Devil in Washington has his and his God’s say.

With the destruction of a democratic, working class socialist movement by European fascists and imperialism and the resultant, aberrant dictatorship of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union a void was created. With the erection of War Communist Party control that followed in China and then Cuba and imperialist attacks world wide, few ideological options for progressive movements survived.

Into the void where the socialist Left and its buoyant optimism was destroyed, (and here I mean a people’s movement for revolutionary reform, not just a political analysis,) came the resurrection of organized superstition: for the Muslims remerged a virulent strain of the State of Islam, constantly at war with the Infidel. For Jews, Zionism and a state that is as arrogant and racist as any of its Arab neighbors but with Imperialist superpower as its best friend.

For the US, the death of the working class Left from the late 1930’s through the beginning of the Third World War against Communism, (commencing with the first use of nuclear, first strike weaponry at Nagasaki and Hiroshima by the American Democratic Party President Truman,) through the end of the end of the 1950’s and the ascension of the military industrial complex, (a quaint name for the Corporatization of the US state,) the void was filled first by a mass movement of African Americans for basic constitutional rights, then a middle-class Left Liberal anti-war movement.

The former was first decapitated by a military police conspiracy called COINTELPRO and carte blanche given to civilian racists, and subsequently and opportunistically praying on the movement’s fringe element’s adventurism and lack of support among the nation’s working people.

The peace movement died out of the failure of Imperialism in South East Asia and out of its own self-interest, which was not revolutionizing either the ownership of production, nor redistribution of wealth.

The depth of the vacuum left in the death of these progressive movements was filled by a culture saturated with Bill Clinton’s Fleetwood Mac theme song, Don’t Keep Thinking About Tomorrow, WalMart, SUVs, IMs, Zoloft and “peace and MacDonald’s economics” at home and the Super Sized dose of Kool Aid Christianity currently media blitzing the American Mind.

These pathetically acculturated Leftists dislike George W. right enough.

He leads the Christian world’s renewed superstitious movement emitting both an Evil Speak out of the Old and New Testament vision of the world. And he speaks it with a twang, and God Bless America, it just loves a good ole, simple lyric, country tune.
But one of the reasons they dislike George is that he almost sounds like the mid-American, common person. And they are so far from the reality of the common American, of any ethnic heritage, and so much further from anyone from the common people of the Third World, that they just can’t get off on a Hugo Chavez.

But please don’t be discouraged by these petit Leftists, Hugo. For I have a great idea: What we ought’a do is, strap ‘em down in their computer chairs, tie’m up in front of their plasma screened monitors and make them watch Glauber Rocha’s Deus e o Diabo na Terra do Sol (also known as Black God, White Devil,) until they scream No Mas. If they don’t get it then, Fuck’m.

I suppose the rest of the world will think Chavez is crazy, but he is seeing the truth of all this insanity and willing to say anything about it. I also took at a review of the book by Noam Chomsky, that Chavez was holding up when talking about Bush, where some of the information came from. I read another book “Future Tense” by Gwynne Dyer and find that Hugo Chavez is very much in agreement with Gwynne Dyer. Forget the style that was used in getting out this message; it is just words- not obsession with war and torture. Hugo Chavez may not be able to accomplish what he set out to do for Venezuela but at least he is able to see the US propaganda within Venezuelan elections; which I so clearly noticed during my stay in Venezuela.

What did Chavez say that makes him a mediocrity or a thug? Chapter and verse, please. He refused to be dull, which is a crime at the UN, I guess. And he spoke with conviction. The audience's verdict was perhaps expressed in the spike in sales for Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival.

Sorry Mother Jones... you shoudn't have sent such a (expletive deleted by editor) of an article to me. It's unforgivable... Adieu.

MOJO has apparently had some fundamental changes which have taken place in the editor's room. The media at weak points will cave in!!!!

We want more of Chavez-like retoric.

Chavez is a nut case. The best thing would be for someone else to run Venezuela as the result of a democratic election. If that doesn't work, I'm sure the US can find "other" ways to get rid of him.

Like the president of Iran, there is just no place in this world for people like Mr. Chavez. At first he was just amusingly stupid, but as time goes on, we run the risk of someone actually believing his Communist garbage. Time to go.

And did someone actually use Cuba as an example of a well-run country? I know this is Mother Jones, but come on. Cuba? Wow.

It's hilarious to see you armchair philosophers comment on whether Chavez is fit to run his country. The fact is, he's doing it, and in a spirited and audacious manner standing up for the poorer segment who know, from experience, that he is on their side. None of you have ever run a Latin American country, and who gives a shit about your "careful analysis" from which you draw your vaunted conclusions. I'd give much greater weight to the opinion of someone of, say, Amy Goodman's stature than any of the inexperienced lumps commenting on this blog. And I can tell by the comments that there are no Amy Goodmans here. You wanna do something worth respect? Show half the fire and determination of this man you call either mediocre or a thug. I assure you, he's worth more than the lot of you put together by virtue of his willingness to call the game as he sees it and do something about what he sees.

American Presidents routinely have referred to people they don't like as evil, for example, "the evil empire," "the axis of evil," but Americans became apoplectic when Hugo Chavez referred to George W. Bush as the devil. I fail to see much of a difference in the sort of rhetoric involved. The world once again will perceive us as hypocrits in our apoplectic response. And speaking of thugs: I haven't seen Chavez dropping bombs on Iraq or anywhere else. More hypocracy in the eyes of most non-Americans. We ought to wake up and temper our language and actions rather than hurling these accusation at Chavez.

There are interesting comments regarding this at the Society of Americans for National Existence. See it here: www.saneworks.us

I've just read the postings. Well, I guess you were told. My major disappointment stems from the fact I have always looked to MOJO, and before that Ramparts and Evergreen Review, as a source of alternative news and commentary. The U.S. at this point in time has an idiot for President. That may be hard for some to come to terms with but look at some other Presidents. A flunky for Texas oil interests (Johnson), a petty crook (Nixon), a bumbling fool (Ford), a failed B-movie actor (Reagan), the ex-head of the CIA (Bush Sr.), a sexual pervert (Clinton), and a drunken frat boy (Bush Jr.). With that type of roster, who's next.. Paris Hilton? The question you must ask yourselves is who do you fear? George Bush or Hugo Chavez? Mr. Chavez attempted to explain himself eloquently in a language he is not familiar with Mr. Brooks if you were listening, unlike President Bush.. who can't speak or understand "Mexican". You really blew it. You're Ivy League too-hip post-grad shorts are showing. I have faith MOJO will come through. Will you?

Chavez, demonstrated what honesty looks like and it is hard to apreciate in a society which has lost its moral social and intellectual compass.

Very disappointing opinion , but the reaction to it showed that more people than the writer realizes do not buy American propaganda. From my perspective in Australia , the US is not a democracy , look at the original definiton of fascism , the subversion of government by corporations it is a fascist state and has been since your early industrialist started slaughtering striking workers. At least Latin America is trying to rehabilitate itself

another reason why sitting in front of one's your computer or TV adversely affects your critical thinking. the administration has so lowered the quality of discussion and you blame chavez? c'mon, armchair liberals cum reactionaries should visit venenzuela and other areas outside of their cozy urban/suburban homes to see the realities of today's realpolitiks that the US has spawned. the neocons are dangerous but armchair commentators are worse.

I thought Chavez's speech was dead on, if a bit overstated (which one expects much more frequently in Spanish than in English). The only thing more amusing was Bolton's reply- "We are not going to bother commenting on the childish name-calling of a poopy-headed dictator." (Slightly paraphrased.)

I am a big fan of Hugo Chavez. Who the hell is Mark Cooper?

Chavez voiced an oratorical whipping of Bush that much of the world has been keeping inside to avoid lowering themselves to our standards. He got an ovation of the general assembly for it. Granted he's no Kennedy, but he said what needed to be said. Our American "Pravda" characterization of the speech has no bearing on what the outside world saw and will remember.

And for those calling him autocratic, he may exercise a lot of executive power, but he was elected in a democratic election not only by more of the vote than Bush, but by record approval numbers and he didn't even imprison the organizers of his own coup de etat (let alone commit illegal torture and wiretapping with retroactive permission). Bungling of the economy and love of Castro aside, he is no more guilty than our own president of ALL charges leveled in this article. This is rhetorical crap and I hope it is just an off-day for an author tired of playing an apologist against the weak and subservient Left like Pelosi and Rangel.

From the peanut gallery, we were roaring with laughter while Chavez talked. And from the looks of this list of responses, YOU LOSE! The so-called "liberal" policy wonks like Cooper/Brookes should try another job. Thug or Mediocrity??!! I'd say the mediocrities wrote that headline.