Job Discussion Forums

[matttheboy]

But that would be the point; there is no argument with you. If someone disagrees you insult them and their opinions. This is not argument; you are attempting to suppress reasonable discourse. I have no desire to continue this ridiculous conversation either; i merely wanted to point out that everyone is entitled to have an opinion, without being a target for petty abuse, and so laid myself open to petty abuse. I am sorry that you have so much pent up anger but taking it out on people you don't know is not the correct way to deal with it.

[moonraven]

Seems to me I am the only person posting anything about THE TOPIC on this thread. The rest has been only the rattling of keyboards....

[moonraven]

ar�gu�ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (�rgy-mnt)
n.

A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
A quarrel; a dispute.
Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: �sheath'd their swords for lack of argument� (Shakespeare).

A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.

A summary or short statement of the plot or subject of a literary work.
A topic; a subject: �You and love are still my argument� (Shakespeare).
Logic. The minor premise in a syllogism.

[moonraven]

In Caracas a very exciting event has been taking place during the past several days: "Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Humanity" (52 countries are represented). As reportage has been almost entirely in Spanish, this poster has translated a very interesting article about the event from yesterday's La Jornada newspaper's headline story, CH�VEZ: M�XICO REGRESAR� UN D�A A AM�RICA LATINA. (www.jornada.unam.mx)

The translation is available at:

http://ravensdriftingcloud.blogspot.com

[OzBurn]

Can anyone tell me what a typical wage for EFL teachers in Venezuela would be? Sounds like an interesting place to visit for a while.

[moonraven]

There is no such thing as a typical wage for ESL teachers.

Schools and universities pay differently--private schools and universities pay more.

And education and experience are a factor. Would you expect someone with a BA in Animal Husbandry, 2 years selling shoes in a strip mall and an ESL certificate (wheeze....) to receive the same salary as a PhD in English with 15 years of experience teaching and training teachers?

Venezuela is an interesting--more than that, fascinating, place--if you're an interesting person.

[OzBurn]

JUST last August, after months of unrest and an attempted coup, 4m Venezuelans voted against Hugo Ch�vez in a recall referendum, more than had voted him in as president in 2000. Yet he won the referendum, and has now completed a stunning turnaround. Local elections on October 31st left his allies controlling 20 of the country's 23 states, plus Caracas, the capital, and they looked likely to bag the state of Carabobo too after the completion of a disputed recount.

No elected leader of the country has ever wielded such power. With a majority in parliament, a tightening grip on the judiciary, the unquestioning loyalty of the military high command and a seemingly endless flow of revenues thanks to high oil prices, the �red tide� that the self-styled revolutionary predicted, referring to his own party colours, is now lapping around the necks of his opponents.

After their referendum defeat, the two dozen anti-Ch�vez parties could not agree on a common electoral strategy. In some regions they competed against each other, virtually guaranteeing a chavista victory. A commission of experts set up to analyse their allegations of fraud called for voter abstention, compounding the damage. Virtually the only survivors of stature are Manuel Rosales, governor of the far-western state of Zulia, and a couple of young mayors from the fledgling Justice First party, whose base is Caracas and the adjoining state of Miranda.

What will Mr Ch�vez do with all this power? Part of the answer lies in a set of repressive laws, currently in the legislative pipeline, which critics say will outlaw most forms of dissent and severely restrict freedom of expression. First in line is a radio and TV bill ostensibly aimed at protecting children by curbing violent and sexually explicit content. But its vague wording will, for example, allow the government to suspend transmission or, ultimately, withdraw a licence, for content which is �contrary to the security of the nation�. Already, private TV stations which have been fierce critics of Mr Ch�vez are showing signs of self-censorship.

Then there is the partial reform of the penal code, which would outlaw virtually every form of protest the opposition has attempted over the past three years. �Intimidating� a senior public official (for example, by banging pots and pans outside his or her house, a popular form of protest) would carry a sentence of three to eight years in jail. Causing panic by spreading �false information�: two to five years. Promoting �disobedience�, even in private: up to six years behind bars.

Article 350 of the 1999 constitution, drafted by the chavistas themselves, enshrines the right to disobey a government that undermines human rights. But a proposed terrorism law would turn many forms of civil disobedience, such as blocking streets, into terrorist acts, with correspondingly severe penalties. And a national police bill would put control of all local police forces, in effect, into the hands of the interior ministry.

The government has already begun to harass dissidents. Leading members of S�mate, an NGO which amounts to an opposition elections unit, face jail terms of up to 16 years. Their alleged crime is to have conspired with a foreign power�the United States�to overthrow the government. S�mate accepted a grant from the National Endowment for Democracy, which is funded by America's Congress and which, prosecutors allege, is a front for the CIA. A neutral judge might well throw the case out. Unfortunately, judges who defy the government tend to lose their jobs; most have only provisional positions. And the supreme court, already largely pro-Ch�vez, is to be expanded from 20 to 32 justices, who will be appointed by the pro-Ch�vez majority in parliament.

An even clearer case of distortion of justice is that of General Francisco Us�n, a former finance minister in Mr Ch�vez's government, who was jailed last month for five-and-a-half years by a military tribunal for allegedly slandering the armed forces. The general had offered a technical opinion on television, as a combat engineer, on the workings of a flame-thrower, in the context of press allegations that one had been used on soldiers in a punishment cell. Two of the soldiers died, but seven months later no one has been charged, much less sentenced, for their deaths; the only person in jail is General Us�n. The defence minister, General Jorge Luis Garc�a Carneiro, minces no words when asked about the case. Anyone, he says, civilian or military, who insults the armed forces can expect similar treatment. Viva la revoluci�n.

[moonraven]

The Economist is a conservative (right wing) publication. Conservatives are against Ch�vez because they blame him for the current price of petroleum--which they see as being too high. Whatever that means. The primary tool of the political right wing is negative propaganda.

Let's examine a few examples of the use of negative propaganda in the article you decided to post.

1. Instead of indicating that 60% of the voters endorsed Ch�vez, they decided to indicate that 4m (what does that mean, by the way?) folks voted against him. I suppose that's to make it look as if he STOLE the election--a la George W.?

2. They attempt to make Ch�vez look like he's been in the presidency for less time than he has by mentioning the 2000 election (his SECOND presidential election, as he was originally elected in December of 1998.) What other world leader with 5 and a half years in the power would receive a 60% vote to keep him/her there?

3. What "stunning turnaround" are they talking about? Do they mean that by receiving 60% of the votes instead of 58% that some kind of dramatic voter trend has been reversed? Or are they talking about something else--that they don't mention?

4. "Repressive laws"--refering to the recently passed media law which specifies the hours in which violent programs can be shown, and which may penalize active sedition on the part of the media. I have heard with my own ears the commerical t.v. and radio stations in Caracas calling for the murder of the president of Venezuela. And not just once or twice, either, but several times every day. So if this law puts the brakes on that practice--which would not be tolerated in any other country--I say, fine. Imagine what would happen if on CBS, NBC and Fox every day someone called for the murder of George W. Bush: for just how many days would that occur before the adminstration of those networks would find itself in the slammer with the key thrown away--by the benefit of the Patriot Act? Venezuela has had a free for all of free speech--a right that has been abused on a sensational scale.

5. The "proposed terrorism law" could have, yes, dramatic implications for folks who have set off bombs in public buildings and have gotten off scot free (in the US, if I remember, they executed Timothy McVeigh for blowing upt eh Federal Building in Oklahoma City--and that was before the Patriot Act was enacted.) The folks who murdered Danilo Anderson last month with a car bomb just might end up in jail. Do you see something wrong with that?

6. "The government has already begun to harrass dissidents". The staleness of this article is already apparent, given that there has been a big controversy because of the documents released over the past few months under the Freedom of Information Act in the US which are circulating in the press and Internet and show the many millions of dollars that the NED gave to opposition groups in Venezuela in any attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government. Also declassified recently and published are CIA documents from 2002 indicating that they were fully briefed on the April coup against the democratically elected president. It is true that arrest warrants have been issued for a number of the folks who overthrew the government, dissolved the legislature, all the institutions and "annulled" the constitution. (That wasn't criminal activity?)

Those are the major distortions for propagandist purposes committed in this brief article. And they are serious ones.

If this is how you see Venezuela, I have some very simple advice for you: Don't go there. That way you don't have to fuss about not making a big salary.

Venezuela's national project doesn't exactly welcome folks who are too lazy to form their own opinions--and who just copy posts from Internet. The article that I posted the link to--which you didn't bother to read--was translated by ME--not just copied and passed off as a personal commentary.

[OzBurn]

Dismissing all commentary that does not originate from people already committed to Chavez is unlikely to persuade those who are not themselves firmly committed to his cause.

There appear to be several reasons why people are against Chavez. Widespread political opposition rarely, if ever, is based on a single issue, as a brief study of history will reveal.

In any case, there is no monolithic "conservative" position on anything. Right and left are useful, perhaps, as general indicators; but not much more. And the price of oil has hardly anything to do with the positions of journalists on fundamental political alliances.

I presume that the Economist noted that 4m voters voted against Chavez to show that the intensity of opposition to him has risen along with, apparently, the intensity of his support. There is a difference between percentages and absolute numbers, which most readers of the Economist, but not, apparently, you, are able to grasp. Sometimes these differences are revealing.

The Economist's article on Chavez links to a page giving considerable background on Chavez's political history (including his attempt at overthrowing democracy via a military coup as well as his subsequent electoral triumphs).

I don't know what "other world leader" would so resoundingly win re-election after five years, at this point, but large electoral victories, in any event, usually have as much to do with a disorganized or extremist opposition than they have to do with the virtues of the incumbent. In any case, widespread political support for a particular candidate doesn't indicate anything about his virtues; it merely shows he's popular.

As far as repressive laws are concerned, there is considerable documentation. One area that was documented by an author on Counterpunch.com (scarcely an organ of "the right") mentions that anyone who voted for the recall referendum has a black "X" stamped on his identity card. This is surely oppressive by any standard. Also, the new media laws make it fairly easy to have a broadcast license revoked, which is extremely harsh. The Counterpunch author cites other discriminatory and violent measures, which you may read about at your leisure at http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine12182004.html.

The fact that a given individual has received money from the NED does not mean that the individual is not a dissident or should be harassed.

I would be curious as to documentation that the NED has funded attempts to "overthrow" the government as distinct from attempts to get rid of the government through electoral means. Historically, US attempts to overthrow governments by violent means have been funded through and administered by the CIA. The NED gave money to groups whose leaders were involved in the failed coup, which is not the same thing as funding a coup. The NED cannot control everything that people in an organization do. Also, what I have read shows not that the CIA was "fully briefed" on the attempted April coup, but rather, that it was aware that it was about to happen, which is something different. How the CIA came by this awareness has yet to be demonstrated, so far as I know. If you have information on this, you are free to post it. (For the record, it wouldn't suprise me if the CIA turns out to have directly financed and helped organize the coup attempt.)

The Counterpunch article states, among other things, the following: "Lina Ron, chief of the Bolivarian Circle in downtown Caracas...has terrorized journalists, and students at the Universidad Central de Venezuela. ....Maria is definitely afraid, especially of the PTJ cops. The Polic�a T�cnica Judicial. Everyone must watch out for them. She says they rape women with impunity. She shows me her national ID card. There's an X in the top right corner, because she voted in the December 1999 referendum to oust Chavez and dispense with his socialist reforms."

More significant than this account is the material from the original article in the Economist, including a fair amount of material which you have failed to address, notably the following:

�Intimidating� a senior public official (for example, by banging pots and pans outside his or her house, a popular form of protest) would carry a sentence of three to eight years in jail. Causing panic by spreading �false information�: two to five years. Promoting �disobedience�, even in private: up to six years behind bars....And a national police bill would put control of all local police forces, in effect, into the hands of the interior ministry.

You also failed to address what was written about General Francisco Us�n.

Please refrain from giving me unasked-for advice about where I should or should not go in the world. Neither Venezuela nor any other country is under your administration or supervision. Also, please refrain from making rude comments about my supposed need for a "big salary," which is not based on anything I wrote, and which is surely beside the point when discussing the vast majority of EFL work in Latin America.

I am quite energetic enough to form my own opinions. The opinion I have formed of you is that you are a dogmatic supporter of authoritarian socialism, that you have a vicious tongue and enjoy spewing hatred towards all who disagree, and that you are self-infatuated and intellectually as well as personally dishonest.

Finally, I actually did read the article you so arduously translated. It was a silly waste of time (unlike some articles on sites to which you provided links, for which you have my thanks). That this is the sort of thing you take the time to render into English shows quite well the level of your own ability to discriminate between propaganda and information.

[moonraven]

Just a few points about your own need to propagandize:

1. I didn't dismiss the Economist because it's anti-Ch�vez, but because it is a right wing publication--that is to say one which supports savage capitalism and continued poverty on the planet. It is my perfect right to be against those elements. That it is also anti-Ch�vez goes without saying--since he is the one world leader who has been tirelessly promoting an International Humanitarian Fund to eliminate poverty for several years, and who also puts his money where his mouth is.

2. You mention a brief study of history to reveal opposition against Ch�vez, but you didn't bother to do that brief study. The Venezuelan government has created a set of laws which among other changes gives the Venezuelan pueblo control of the petroleum income--instead of continuing the practice of the oligarchy using that source of income as a petty cash box, and provides for agrarian reform in the country with the most unequal distribution of land in the world. Threatened interests equals violent opposition. Compare those laws with the laws created in the US in the past 3 years--starting with the Patriot Act. Which are repressive of citizen's rights? Do the work. Read the texts of the 49 Leyes Habiles and of the Patriot Act. I have read them.

3. The price of oil has EVERYTHING to do with journalists' positions--if they want to keep their jobs in the current US political climate, they print what the government tells them.

4. Ch�vez did not attempt to "overthrow democracy" in February of 1992. Carlos Andr�s P�rez was not a democrat, but a butcher (ever hearof the "caracazo"--the massacre in Caracas in 1989?) and a thief who was drummed out of office right after that for corruption and malfeasance. He has been living in exile since in Miami and in Santo Domingo, and every few months calls for the murder of Ch�vez. Sweet guy....Real democrat, too.

5. Something wrong with a president being popular instead of hated? According to you, apparently, there is.

6. I read the entire Valentine article 2 days ago. The person who you refer to out of context, Mar�a, is described as an anti-chavista by Valentine. Hardly an unbiased source--but you quote her out of Valentine's context as if she were credible. That's propaganda, sweetie.

7. You need to do some research on the NED. The most refequently quoted slogan from the NED itself--and this was first stated 20 plus years ago is: "We do openly what the CIA used to do covertly." When the scandal erupted about the NED backing of coup leaders in Venezuela, and the SUMATE person was placed under arrest, the NED leader went to Caracas to try to pressure Ch�vez. Ch�vez didn't even receive him. Why should he? For the most complete information in English check the website www.venezuelanalysis.com. There are probably 25 articles with links to the documents that were released under the Freedom of Information Act to the attorney Eva Gollinger in the US. When you've read all that, let's hear from you on the issue. Not before, as you have no information.

And as for your personal attacks against me: calling me intellectually and personally dishonest--show me the proof! Nobody is forcing you to read anything that I translated--and I do not translate arduously, as I am bilingual and I write regularly in Spanish. You also have zero idea as to my ideas in regard to "authoritarian socialism", but I have been very open in my lack of support for the fascism in the US.

I do not "spew hatred" at those who disagree with me. I simply told you that you were posting propaganda. Which you were. And which you did again. One of the main techniques of propaganda is name-calling--which you have done toward me, and which I have not done toward you.

And as for the salary reference--you are the one who started this by wanting to know the "typical" salary (I am still chuckling over the naivete of your question.) Your motives were revealed by you--not by me. I really couldn't care less if you go to Venezuela or to Qatar.

[OzBurn]

Your support for authoritarian socialism, your dishonesty, and your comical self-infatuation are amply demonstrated on other threads on which you post, as well as this one; which is why such traits have been remarked upon by so very many people, with nary a one to defend you, poor thing. And also why I needn't demonstrate them any further.

You do make the unfortunate (for your side) mistake of thinking that if you get someone to stop posting (or voting), you have won the argument. This is the same mistake that Stalin, Mao, etc. made. But you can't put an X on my identity card, however much your heart may long to do so.

Your own talent for propaganda (as distinct from your continual attempts to produce it) is so gravely lacking that it is best for you to continue posting. Your combination of vitriolic hatred, passionate attachment to worn-out red fascist dogmas, and habitual and obvious distortions and evasions of facts will undo you all by themselves. You are (in aspiration if not in fact) the commissar of Orwell's unforgettable description: "half gangster, half gramophone."

[moonraven]

The post you just directed at me is abusive. (Perhaps you should read the rules for posting on this forum regrading abusive language and name-calling.)

It also contains no arguments, facts or information to refute the floor-mopping I just did with you. Since you know absolutely nothing about the topic, that doesn't surprise me.

[Aramas]

Bellicoser and bellicoser

Just thought I'd resurrect this little gem

[moonraven]

Too bad you chose not to read any of the information.

[ElNota]

I'm gonna skip the commentary, and go right to an interesting topic that Moonraven brought up. How is the Nobel Peace Prize winner selected? I have always wondered about that... as Rigoberta Menchu Tum won it, largely for creating a guerrilla resistance movement among the Indigenous people of Guatamala. I mean, I'm down for "fighting the man", especially in her case when "the man" was a brutal local goverment hellbent on brutalizing and killing the defenseless Indians, but how does that qualify you for a prize with the word "peace" in it? I mean thats the same prize MLK won for practicing the nonviolent resistance principles that worked for Gandhi in India.... shouldn't you have to be "peaceful" in some way in order to qualify?

Here's what I dug up from the Nobel Prize website