•TPC•

Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to

Three men with the intestinal fortitude to defy a malevolent empire, despite its overwhelming economic and military power….Viva La Revolución!

By Fidel Castro

Originally published at Cuba News Agency

08/20/07

The history of Cuba during the last 140 years is one of struggle to preserve national identity and independence, and the history of the evolution of the American empire, its constant craving to appropriate Cuba and of the horrendous methods that it uses today to hold on to world domination.

Prominent Cuban historians have dealt in depth with these subjects in different periods and in various excellent books which deserve to be readily available to our compatriots. These reflections are addressed especially to the new generations with the aim of helping them learn about very important and decisive events in the destiny of our homeland.

Continue Reading »

NOTICE TO OUR READERS: The editors will be most grateful for your attention at the end of this feature. Thank you.

By Stephen Lendman

7/1/07

On June 27, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal vied for attention with feature stories on oil giants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips “walking away from their multi-billion-dollar investments in Venezuela” as the Journal put it or standing “Defiant in Venezuela” as the Times headlined. Both papers can barely contain their displeasure over Hugo Chavez wanting Venezuela to have majority ownership of its own assets and no longer let Big (foreign) Oil investors plunder them. Those days are over. State oil company PDVSA is now majority shareholder with a 78% interest in four Orinoco joint ventures. That’s up from previous stakes of from 30 to 49.9%. That’s how it should be, but it can’t stop the Journal and Times from whining about it.

What ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips reject, oil giants Chevron, BP PLC, Total SA and Statoil ASA agreed to. They’re willing to accept less of a huge profit they’ll get by staying instead of none at all by pouting and walking away as their US counterparts did. Or did they? The Wall Street Journal reports “Conoco isn’t throwing in the towel in Venezuela yet. By not signing a deal, the Houston company kept open the option of pursuing compensation through arbitration.” Exxon, however, is mum on that option for now. Responding to Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez saying the two oil giants will lose their stakes in the Orinoco oil fields altogether, a company spokesperson expressed “disappoint(ment) that we have been unable to reach an agreement on the terms for migration to a mixed enterprise structure (but will) continue discussions with the Venezuelan government on a way forward.”

So what’s likely ahead as most Big Oil giants agree to Venezuela’s terms while two outliers haven’t yet but may in the end do so. The country’s oil reserves are too lucrative to walk away from, especially with Russia now pressuring foreign investors the same way. It also wants majority stakes in its own resources with its giant oil and gas company Gazprom in control. It has a monopoly over the country’s Sakhalin gas field exports and has taken over two of the largest energy projects in eastern Russia.

If these actions by Venezuela and Russia succeed as is likely, they may influence other oil producing nations to follow a similar course and pursue plans for larger stakes in their own resources as well. Why not? They own them and even with less ownership interests, Big Oil will still earn huge profits from their foreign investments. They just won’t be quite as huge as they once were with one-sided deals benefiting them most. So the end of this story may not be its end according to Michael Goldbert, head of the international dispute resolution group at Baker Botts, an influential law firm representing major international oil companies. He said he didn’t think the June 26 actions were “necessarily the end of the story (adding), the prospects of a deal are never over until a sale is made or an arbitrator reaches a decision.”

The investments are large ranging from $2.5 - $4.5 billion for Conoco and $800 million for Exxon if Venezuela assumes ownership of its heavy oil projects. Conoco explained “Although the company is hopeful that the negotiations will be successful, it has preserved all legal rights, including international arbitration.” Exxon also expressed its hope an agreement could be reached permitting it to continue operating in an ownership role.

It looks like Conoco and Exxon want one foot in and the other outside Venezuela to keep its interests in the country alive. It also looks like they’re playing games and letting the Wall Street Journal and New York Times do their moaning about what they ought to be grateful for - the right to invest and earn huge profits the way other Big Oil investors are opting to do. Despite their June 26 decisions, Exxon and Conoco may, in the end, make the same choice. If they don’t, the stakes they relinquish will shift to other producers according to James Cordier, president of Liberty Trading Group in Tampa, Florida. He said production won’t halt, and “Before everyone walks out, a deal will be struck and production there will continue.” Caracas-based petroleum economist Mazhar al-Shereidah agrees saying “Venezuela is now free to find other partners (and) this doesn’t constitute a dramatic situation.” There are plenty of capable and willing takers around.

Conoco and Exxon may in the end accept less of a good investment, stop whining about it, and continue operating in Venezuela. Why not? The country is more open than many other oil-producing nations with much of their world’s proved reserves controlled by state monopolies barring private investment. Venezuela barred them from 1975 - 1992 when the nation’s energy sector was completely nationalized. That changed with a series of partial privatizations in the 1990s, and Chavez said he has no plans to reinstitute a complete oil industry nationalization. Private investors can thus remain in the country and continue earning huge profits doing so. Conoco and Exxon may decide after all to share in them.

Venezuelan V. Iraqi Oil Policies - A Study in Contrasts

High-level US officials from the administration, Congress and Pentagon are pressuring the puppet Iraqi parliament to pass its new “Hydrocarbon Law” drafted in Washington and by Big US and UK oil companies. Its provisions are in stark contrast to Venezuela’s oil management policies under Hugo Chavez. For Chavez, his nation and peoples’ interests come first. In Iraq, however, Big Oil licensed plunder will become law if the parliament agrees to accept what its occupier and corporate interests demand. At this stage, it’s nearly certain it will clearing the way for stealing part of what a US state department spokesperson in 1945 called “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history” - the vast (mostly Saudi) Middle East oil reserves.

In Venezuela, the nation and its people will benefit most from the country’s oil wealth. In Iraq, their resources are earmarked mostly for Big US and UK Oil. The new “Hydrocarbon Law” is a shameless act of theft on the grandest of scale. It’s a privatization blueprint for plunder giving foreign investors a bonanza of resources, leaving Iraqis a mere sliver for themselves. As now written, its complex provisions give the Iraqi National Oil Company exclusive control of just 17 of the country’s 80 known oil fields with all yet-to-be-discovered deposits set aside for foreign investors.

Even worse, Big Oil is free to expropriate all earnings with no obligation to invest anything in Iraq’s economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire local workers, respect union rights, or share new technologies. Foreign investors will be granted long-term contracts up to 30 or more years, dispossessing Iraq and its people of their own resources in a naked scheme to steal them.

The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and rest of the dominant US media shamelessly denounce Hugo Chavez for his courage and honor doing the right thing. In contrast, their silence, and effective complicity, on what will be one of the greatest ever corporate crimes when implemented shows their gross hypocrisy. It’ll be up to the people of Iraq to resist and reclaim what Venezuelan people already have from its social democratic leader serving their interests above all others.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at .

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time.

A SPECIAL MESSAGE TO OUR READERS.

For over two years now, Thomas Paine’s Corner has been a powerful and unwavering voice for a courageous and badly needed agenda for change. We have consistently delivered hard-hitting and insightful commentary, polemics, and analysis in our persistent efforts to persuade, educate, and inspire, and serve as a discriminating but generous platform for voices from many points of view with one thing in common: their spiritual honesty and quality of thinking.
•
Aside from the caliber of its content, Thomas Paine’s Corner’s strength is that there are no advertisers or corporations to exercise de facto censorship or orchestrate our agenda. We aim to keep it that way and we need your help!
•
As a semi-autonomous section of the multi-faceted, thoroughly comprehensive, and highly prestigious Cyrano’s Journal Online, we share Cyrano’s passion for winning the battle of communications against systemic lies, an act which is essential to attaining social and environmental justice. To help us achieve that goal, Cyrano’s Journal, besides its regular editorial pages, intends to begin producing editorial videos to expose the lack of proper context, ahistoricalism, excessive over-emphasis on inane events, and outright lies the corporate media, and in particular television, present to you and your family as a steady diet of pernicious intellectual junk food. This will be an expensive under-taking and there will be no grants forthcoming from the likes of the American Enterprise Institute, the Coors or Heritage Foundation. You can be sure of that!
•
As Greek mythology has it, the powerful are frequently defeated by their own hubris, and that’s precisely what we are witnessing today. Our rotten-to-the-core, usurping plutocracy has become so overtly and arrogantly corrupt that our patience has now reached its generous limit, and the membrane of America’s collective consciousness is about to burst. This will result in a significant restructuring of our socioeconomic and political environments, we hope (and must make sure) for the better. Considering what is at stake in the world today, Cyrano’s Journal and Thomas Paine’s Corner want to accelerate the arrival of that new day, and its promise of a new, truly well organized, kind, and honest civilization.
•
Assisting us in our cause is as simple as clicking on the PayPal button below and exercising the power of your wallet. No matter how large or how small, we thank you in advance for your donation! If you are serious about our struggle for a new society, please don’t put it off. Let us hear from you today.
•

Jason Miller
Associate Editor, Cyrano’s Journal Online, and Editorial Director, Thomas Paine’s Corner.
Patrice Greanville, Editor in Chief, Cyrano’s Journal Online

by Stephen Lendman

6/20/07

Dictionaries define “yellow journalism” variously as irresponsible and sensationalist reporting that distorts, exaggerates or misstates the truth. It’s misinformation or agitprop disinformation masquerading as fact to boost circulation and readership or serve a larger purpose like lying for state and corporate interests. The dominant US media excel in it, producing a daily diet of fiction portrayed as real news and information in their role as our national thought-control police gatekeepers. In the lead among the print and electronic corporate-controlled media is the New York Times publishing “All the News That’s Fit to Print” by its standards. Others wanting real journalism won’t find it on their pages allowing only the fake kind. It’s because this paper’s primary mission is to be the lead instrument of state propaganda making it the closest thing we have in the country to an official ministry of information and propaganda.

Single-handedly, the Times destroys “The Myth of the Liberal Media” that’s also the title of Edward Herman’s 1999 book on “the illiberal media,” the market system, and what passes for democracy in America Michael Parenti calls “Democracy For the Few,” in his book with that title out earlier this year in its 8th edition.

In his book, Herman writes about the “propaganda model” he and Noam Chomsky introduced and developed 11 years earlier in their landmark book titled “Manufacturing Consent.” They explained how the dominant media use this technique to program the public mind to go along with whatever agenda best serves wealth and power interests. So imperial wars of aggression are portrayed as liberating ones, humanitarian intervention, and spreading democracy to nations without any. Never mind they’re really for new markets, resources like oil, and cheap exploitable labor paid for with public tax dollars diverted from essential social needs.

Continue Reading »

Photo: Mary O’Grady Wins Bastiat Prize for Journalism

By Stephen Lendman

6/9/07

She’s at it again on the Journal’s editorial page in her June 4 article called “The Young and the Restless,” subtitled “Is this the beginning of the end for Hugo Chavez?” The writer is self-styled Latin American expert Mary Anastasia O’Grady always getting top grades in vilification and disinformation but failing ones on regional knowledge and legitimate journalism.

This time she may have overstepped. Her article reeks with disinformation, outright lies, and most disturbing of all - incendiary commentary straddling the tipping edge of inciting insurrection. She can get away with it because she represents elitist interests and the Journal’s editorial view supporting the Bush administration’s fixation on ousting Hugo Chavez by any means, including through violence. It doesn’t matter that Chavez was just reelected again in December by a near two to one margin or that he’s admired and loved by the great majority of Venezuelans. They’re unperturbed and/or supportive of his shuttering RCTV’s VHF Channel 2 overshadowing that issue being used as a pretext for suspicious violent street protests, mainly in Caracas. More on that below.

It’s clear O’Grady will fit right in if the Journal’s controlling Bancroft family succumbs to greed selling out to Rupert Murdock’s wooing. That prospect’s got Journal employees apoplectic. They’re scrambling through their union seeking an alternate buyer willing to grant what Murdock never will - journalistic independence and what’s left of the paper’s tattered integrity. Those ideas are anathema to how he views journalism, and he’s not shy saying it.

Australian-raised author Bruce Page wrote about him in his new book, “The Murdock Archipelago,” calling him “one of the world’s leading villains (and) global pirates.” Murdock is clear, according to Page. He wants his journalistic empire to be a privatized “state propaganda service, manipulated without scruple and with no regard for truth (in return for) vast government favors such as tax breaks, regulatory relief, and monopoly” market control free as possible from competitors having too much of what Murdock wants for himself. The problem is he usually gets his way. Unless Journal employees stop him, the WSJ’s independence and status as a legitimate publication are over. Under Murdock control, no distinction will be made between real news, editorial opinion and agitprop, and no views will be tolerated, henceforth, contrary to Mr. Murdock’s. That’s how he operates throughout his media empire - take it or leave and find another line of work.

The way O’Grady writes, she’s not on board with other staffers against the Bancroft family sellout. Murdock will love her views, may give her more latitude and maybe more space as well. Let’s hope she’s disappointed, that Journal employees retain their independence, and Journal readers keep what they now have free from the venomous claws of the villainous king of media moguls.

Continue Reading »

BBC’s commentary ended saying “The arguments highlight, once again, how deeply divided Venezuela is.” Unmentioned was that division is about 70 - 80% pro-Chavez, around 20% opposed (the more privileged “sifrino” class), and a small percentage pro and con between them.

By Stephen Lendman

5/28/07

Venezuelan TV station Radio Caracas Television’s (known as RCTV) VHF Channel 2’s operating license expired May 27, and it went off the air because the Chavez government, with ample justification, chose not to renew it. RCTV was the nation’s oldest private broadcaster, operating since 1953. It’s also had a tainted record of airing Venezuela’s most hard right yellow journalism, consistently showing a lack of ethics, integrity or professional standards in how it operated as required by the law it arrogantly flaunted.

Starting May 28, a new public TV station (TVES) replaces it bringing Venezuelans a diverse range of new programming TV channel Vive president, Blanca Eckhout, says will “promot(e) the participation and involvement of all Venezuelans in the task of communication (as an alternative to) the media concentration of the radio-electric spectrum that remains in the hands of a (dominant corporate) minority sector” representing elitist business interests, not the people.

Along with the other four major corporate-owned dominant television channels (controlling 90% of the nation’s TV market), RCTV played a leading role instigating and supporting the aborted April, 2002 two-day coup against President Chavez mass public opposition on the streets helped overturn restoring Chavez to office and likely saving his life. Later in the year, these stations conspired again as active participants in the economically devastating 2002-03 main trade union confederation (CTV) - chamber of commerce (Fedecameras) lockout and industry-wide oil strike including willful sabotage against state oil company PDVSA costing it an estimated $14 billion in lost revenue and damage.

This writer explained the dominant corporate media’s active role in these events in an extended January, 2007 article titled “Venezuela’s RCTV Acts of Sedition.” It presented conclusive evidence RCTV and the other four corporate-run TV stations violated Venezuela’s Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and Television (LSR). That law guarantees freedom of expression without censorship but prohibits, as it should, transmission of messages illegally promoting, apologizing for, or inciting disobedience to the law that includes enlisting public support for the overthrow of a democratically elected president and his government.

In spite of their lawlessness, the Chavez government treated all five broadcasters gently opting not to prosecute them, but merely refusing to renew one of RCTV’s operating licenses (its VHF one) when it expired May 27 (its cable and satellite operations are unaffected) - a mere slap on the wrist for a media enterprise’s active role in trying to overthrow the democratically elected Venezuelan president and his government. The article explained if an individual or organization of any kind incited public hostility, violence and anti-government rebellion under Section 2384 of the US code, Title 18, they would be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for up to 20 years for the crime of sedition.

They might also be subject to prosecution for treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution stating: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” such as instigating an insurrection or rebellion and/or sabotage to a national defense utility that could include state oil company PDVSA’s facilities vital to the operation and economic viability of the country and welfare of its people. It would be for US courts to decide if conspiring to overthrow a democratically government conformed to this definition, but it’s hard imagining it would not at least convict offenders of sedition.

Opposition Response to the Chavez Government Action

So far, the dominant Venezuelan media’s response to RCTV’s shutdown has been relatively muted, but it remains to be seen for how long. However, for media outside the country, it’s a different story with BBC one example of misreporting in its usual style of deference to power interests at home and abroad. May 28 on the World Service, it reported RCTV’s license wasn’t renewed because “it supported opposition candidates” in a gross perversion of the facts, but that’s how BBC operates.

BBC online was more nuanced and measured, but nonetheless off the mark in key comments like reporting “Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in Caracas Sunday, some to celebrate, others to protest” RCTV’s shuttering. Unexplained was that Chavez supporters way outnumbered opponents who nearly always are part of rightist/corporate-led staged for the media events in contrast to spontaneous pro-government crowds assembling in huge numbers at times, especially whenever Chavez addresses them publicly.

BBC also exaggerated “skirmishes” on the streets with “Police us(ing) tear gas and water cannons to disperse (crowds) and driving through the streets on motorbikes, officers fired plastic bullets in the air.” It also underplayed pro-government supportive responses while blaring opposition ones like “Chavez thinks he owns the country. Well, he doesn’t.” Another was “No to the closure. Freedom.” And still another was “Everyone has the right to watch what they want. He can’t take away this channel.” BBC played it up commenting “As the afternoon drew on, the protests got louder.” The atmosphere became nasty. Shots were fired in the air and people ran for cover. It was not clear who was firing” when it’s nearly always clear as it’s been in the past - anti-Chavistas sent to the streets to stir up trouble and blame it on Chavez.

BBC’s commentary ended saying “The arguments highlight, once again, how deeply divided Venezuela is.” Unmentioned was that division is about 70 - 80% pro-Chavez, around 20% opposed (the more privileged “sifrino” class), and a small percentage pro and con between them.

Stephen Lendman is a senior contributing editor for Cyrano’s Journal Online (https://bestcyrano.org/). He lives in Chicago and can be reached at . Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on The Micro Effect.com each Saturday at noon US central time.