Chavez: Christ would lash the cardinal with a bullwhip

Urosa Sabino

A feisty verbal battle between Hugo Chavez and the leader of the Venezuelan Catholic Church, Cardinal Jorge Urosa Sabino, erupted into the open today.

The prelate started it yesterday in Rome when he said Chavez was trampling on the Venezuelan Constitution, that Chavez and his government were taking the nation on the road to marxist socialism, was totalitarian, was leading to a dictatorship ...

Today Chavez hit back in his usual earthy way: The cardinal "accuses me of we are creating a marxist dictatorship ... may God forgive him, He knows (the cardinal) is lying."

"If Christ were to appear ... I have no doubt that he would lash him (with a "latigo", a bullwhip)."

Chavez said the cardinal should present proof of his accusations to the National Assembly and other government institutions. The archbishop of Caracas "is lying, making unfounded accusations, very similar to the ones of the golpistas who say I violate the Constitution and for that they have to topple me."

Chavez said Urosa Sabino, who participated in the 2002 coup, should admit (the aims of the golpistas) because, "the devil does not respect cassocks."

"Only you, señor cardinal, can know from which dark corner of your soul you draw such capacity to lie."

Chavez said the cardinal has not taken a stance or said anything about his role the 2002 coup attempt.

Full article in Spanish:

http://www.telesurtv.net/noticias/secciones/nota/74881-NN/chavez-desmintio-acusaciones-de-cardenal-venezolano-sobre-supuesta-dictadura-en-venezuela/


----------------------

The cardinal in the past has been at loggerheads with Chavez several times. Urosa Sabino came out against the 2006 creation of the Reformed Catholic Church (which supports Chavez's social programs) and has spoken out against using Mass to convey political messages.

-------------------

On the link there is a brief video clip (upper right) in which Chavez challenges the cardinal to brandish his "troglodyte weapons," that a troglodyte is one "who lives in a cave, in the past." He says the cardinal represents the "most rancid extreme rightwing" in Venezuela.

Video is worth a chuckle.

I've never seen anyone call a bishop a rancid right wing troglodyte before! :rofl:

trying again

http://www.telesurtv.net/noticias/secciones/nota/74881-NN/chavez-desmintio-acusaciones-de-cardenal-venezolano-sobre-supuesta-dictadura-en-venezuela/

If it doesn't work again, google telesur and you will find the story under "Mas titulares"

Chávez desmintió acusaciones de cardenal venezolano sobre supuesta ''dictadura'' en Venezuela

------------

"rancid rightwing troglodyte" Hugo does have a way with words. :-)

Btw, there is also a story of how the alcaldes (mayors of 15 cities and towns) in Pando province of Bolivia has kicked out all USAID operations effective immediately.

How awesome is Evo Morales!

LOL!

I remember Pando is where the Bolivian right-wing massacred the indigenous Bolivian farmers, and company a couple of years ago on September 11.

But, He would certainly not like 99%, or perhaps 100% of the Cardinals.

Only time Jesus ever lost his temper.

And I would guess that this may be a money dispute. Under rightwing governments, the Catholic Church received vast subsidies from the public coffers in Venezuela. Chavez cut the subsidies; the cardinals joined the coup. There was then a negotiation of some kind (don't know all the details) but some subsidies (like hospitals?) were reinstated. The cardinals went quiet for a while. Now they're talking crap again. I'd bet that money is at the heart of it. For one thing, the Chavez government has hugely improved public education, and provides free college and post-graduate educations to the needy, and they have created many new public colleges and universities. This may be cutting into the Church education monopoly. For another thing, the Chavez government really is grass roots driven. The poor and the lower middle class majority now have rightful political power. People may be using their time better--forming community councils, co-ops and other civic and business enterprises, and paying less attention to the Church and donating less money to them. As for the subsidies to the Church, I don't know the current status of those, but maybe, in the current economic squeeze, more Church subsidies were cut.


These rightwing cardinals have one thing on their minds: MONEY. They ARE the "money changers in the temple." Chavez has used scripture against his enemies before. I pretty sure that's what he meant here--Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the Temple.

One more twist: The cardinals may be getting "subsidies" from the "temple" in Langley. They are certainly serving Mammon North.

the Church education monopoly...
hospital subsidies going to the church?

You're talking about you own Venezuela which stayed in the times of Sergent Garcia, not the one in 2010 South America. We took off our sombreros, orale!

paradigm for the greed psychosis that seizes both north and south American capitalists and their rightwing political enablers; greed that drives the greedy to end democracy--"suspend" the Constitution, the courts, the national assembly and all civil rights--as your lot did in 2002; or to mount a bosses' lockout in the oil industry, trying to destroy the democratically elected and very popular Chavez government that way, after their U.S. supported coup failed; or who plot with the CIA; or who hoard food; or who CAN'T STAND the poor and lower middle class getting FREE medical care and FREE college educations.

Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) starts out nice and friendly--like rightwingers act when they are out of power--but, whoa!, when the gold is found, he goes paranoid and savagely greedy, alienates his friends, and then--ha-ha!--loses all the gold dust in a dust storm.

The movie is also famous for the line of Mexican banditos, who "don't need no steenkin badges!" Dobbs, gone off on his own with all the gold and no friends, makes himself prey to bandits.

The perfect "Wall Street" movie long before "Wall Street" was ever made. Greed sickens the mind and soul. It isolates the greedy egomaniac. It kills the dreams of others--for a modest gain, for a decent life. It kills friendship. It kills the Planet. It kills people. And I see absolutely nothing in the rightwing, anti-Chavez ideology in Venezuela, or here, or in the corpo-fascist press, that does not say "Fred C. Dobbs" to me. Greed to get back control of the oil revenues--to literally take books out of children's hands and food out of their mouths and PROFIT from their poverty and lack of opportunity. Greed to be rich and then richer. The greed we see in the banksters. The greed we see in anti-democratic coupsters. The greed we see in Miami--grand central for rightwing plots to tyrannize other Latin Americans once again. The greed of the corporate rulers and war profiteers surrounding Venezuela with war assets. The greed of assassins for immediate gain and the greed of their employers. The greed of predatory capitalism which is literally killing the Gulf of Mexico and so much else. Rightwing greed and rightwing LIES to further their greed.

That's what I see in your posts--Fred C. Dobbs in his "nice" phase. That's what I see in U.S. policy in Latin America and in the rightwing there and here. Greed leading to unreality, lies and self-lying, paranoia and insanity--chasing the gold dust as it swirls into oblivion.

But... Fred C. Dobbs "chasing the gold dust as it swirls into oblivion"?! Really? :):rofl:

:nopity:

Some movies are considered classic statements.

What leads you to think a serious film doesn't have the value of the book or play from which it was taken?

of rightwingers, here and there.

And you obviously don't know "The Treasure of Sierra Madre," movie or book.

you also think that the Socialist International is a trotskyist organization. So, all in all, how could I feel offended?

And yes, I've read and watched "The Treasure of Sierra Madre". That's why I had good fun reading your stereotyped bigoted post. Understanding today's situation in Venezuela through a 1940's American movie about 1920's Mexico (!) You can't go much further than that :)

Now, if you excuse me, I'll go take a nap under my sombrero because I ate too much fried beans..

capitalism that brought on the Great Depression. But they act just like predatory capitalists. They can't see anything but gold-gold-gold. They want to be rich like Croesus. But they have their comeuppance. One of them is murderously, insanely greedy, won't settle for a modest gain, a share, a decent life, wants it all (so like the banksters, Wall Street and BP). He ruins it for the others, who gain some wisdom by contrast with him, but guess who are the wisest, kindest, most altruistic characters in the film? The Indigenous villagers whom one of the three gold-diggers decides to go live with, foregoing dreams of untoward riches, BECAUSE THEY ARE WORTHY PEOPLE.

How is this stereotyping, or racist, and how does it have anything to do with you, except that the rightwing activities and causes that you defend serve predatory capitalists?

The banditos in the film stand for any and all lowlife criminals, whether rich or poor, who prey on others--in this case, Fred C. Dobbs, poor, friendless and insane, but with his friends' stolen wealth hidden in his donkey packs. The virtuous people--the hard-working, honest, kind, "family values" characters in this film, are the Indigenous villagers, and the most likable main character in the film--the old gold-miner, Howard--is likable BECAUSE he recognizes their virtue and quality, and gives up his predatory life to go live communally with them. He has something of value to offer the villagers--not "gold," which produces nothing but greed and strife--but a knowledge of medicine.

You do not understand this film if you think that it is stereotyping Latinos. It is, quite the contrary, a parable about NORTH AMERICAN CAPITALISM and its exploitative premise toward the poor and toward Mexico. It is one of the most INTELLIGENT films ever made in Hollywood.

Your view of it--and of my opinions--is idiotic and blind, but I can see why it threatens you. It is a distinctly LEFT-WING film that attacks capitalistic greed and approves of socialist sharing and promotes the communal values of the Indigenous. Children don't matter to Exxon Mobil and BP and those who shill for them in the media. Human life doesn't matter. The environment (which Howard, in the film, has some respect for, from the beginning) doesn't matter. Only "gold" matters. That is the value of rightwingers in every country. They want the "freedom" to dig out the "gold" unfettered by law or social obligations. Their yammering about "freedom" is bullshit and extremely hypocritical. They want "freedom" for themselves (Fred C. Dobbs) and for no one else, and others' lives and dreams don't matter. They will sacrifice human beings and society to their greed and lie through their teeth about it. They will focus obsessively on Chavez, and, by implication (but never stated), on his many supporters--who promote SHARING--and ignore the tens of thousands of murders of union leaders, peasant farmers, human rights workers, teachers, journalists and others in Colombia, under rightwing and U.S. control, where greed reigns. Those horrors are NOT happening in Venezuela, which has a decent government that you want to bring down because it doesn't serve greed. You are obsessed with bringing it down--with the same kind of insane obsession that Fred C. Dobbs had toward his partners. SHARING the wealth was his enemy. Decent government, as represented in the film by his partnership with the others and by the villagers, is his enemy. He is blind to his own injustice. That is the rightwing in a nutshell, in every country. And that is your stance in a nutshell, here. You are blind to the gross injustice of Colombia, of fascists and of predatory capitalists, and wholly obsessed with bringing down a government that holds the values of "The Treasure of Sierra Madre"--the values of the Indigenous villagers, of sharing, of mutual aid, and of fostering human life.

I love that film.

Stop twisting arguments for nothing. You were just making up stuff again when you wrote about the catholic church's "education monopoly" in Venezuela (huge false stereotype, check your post #7). At least be honest enough to admit that you got that out of a magician's hat. Why would you invent that?

About places and people you don't know. Why do you suppose so much stupid aggressive shit on people?

She is very informed on OUR history, and knows the patterns, and signs about OUR inevitable directions.

It would be a smart move to forget about trying to attack the writer. She has a great deal more information, clearly, about the subject of what WE are concerned about, the future of OUR own country and its policy.

Your country is not the issue here.

I asked HER why does she suppose so many arbitrary negative things on people, like Chango, whose positions are quite the opposite from what she constantly tries to accuse him of. I know Venezuelan history and Chango is completely right when he corrects her concerning the supposed "church education monopoly" in Venezuela. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's a fake stereotype she got from... movies about other Latin American countries!? The method is quite offensive. Why on earth would she constantly make up that kind of stuff?

But it's a lot worse to see that when she's corrected she replies with insults, calling the poster a greedy right-winger and comparing him to a murderous American gold miner who destroys the healthy values of the Mexican Indigenous villagers. That's beyond offensive!

Now, may I remind you that the topic here is Venezuelan politics and the relation to the catholic church, not about "the future of YOUR own country". How narrow-minded!

and made into a movie by John Huston, about down-and-out but predatory (gold digger) Americans in Mexico. It is a parable of capitalist exploitation, first of all of the unemployed Americans, and then about the traits of greed, selfishness, paranoia and murderousness that characterize American capitalism--or rather, I should say, that poison American capitalism--which, at bottom, is merely a system of cooperative financing of whatever society needs, but which got twisted into an evil system of greed and exploitation, resulting in the Great Depression (and has done so again, today, resulting in Great Depression II).

Who do you mean by "you"? I didn't write it or film it. And the man who did write it--B. Traven--and John Huston obviously knew a great deal about the lives of the people on whom the story is based, both American and Mexican. Parable though it is, the story rings true in every way. It is one of the greatest films that Hollywood ever produced, by one of its greatest directors, Huston, and starring one of its greatest actors, Humphrey Bogart. It was filmed almost entirely on location in Mexico.

It is not ME "supposing so much stupid aggressive shit on people." The writer and filmmaker are both using their own experience, creativity and intelligence to tell a story about GREED and what this motive does to peoples' minds and to society. And, Lord, you can't read and understand history and not realize that "aggressive shit" is not projection; it is very real. In fact, the '49ers--the displaced American gold miners of the late 19th century--did far worse than Fred C. Dobbs. They slaughtered thousands of Native Americans and Chinese immigrants. The focus of "Treasure of Sierra Madre" is on how out-of-control capitalistic greed affects the people at the bottom--both the displaced, hungry, jobless American workers in Mexico and those around them. The BEST people in the film are the Indigenous villagers who have no use for "gold." They value children, life and community. The worst is Fred C. Dobbs, who is capitalism with a capital C (greed gone mad). In between, there are various shades of good and bad behavior among people--the main characters and others--who are all coping with POVERTY resulting from an unjust system.

The capitalist system, when it reaches the high state of corruption that it reached in the 1920s (and that it has reached today) forces the individual into isolation. It makes the Fred C. Dobbses of this world feel ALL ALONE. He has to "look out for no. 1" and sacrifices everything--his friends, their dreams, his own dreams, even his own safety--to have it ALL. The film brilliantly foreshadows Dobbs' descent into total isolation when, for instance, the old, wise miner takes time to restore the creek ecology where they have been gold mining, and Dobbs sees no value in that whatsoever--no value in cleaning up after himself, no value in paying Mother Nature back for her riches. He is already so egocentric and greed-driven that this wisdom is utterly lost on him. It takes a tremendous effort of mind and spirit to overcome this isolation and recognize that we live IN A CONTEXT of people and Nature, and that people and Nature are the true "gold." Without friends, family, community and Mother Nature, "gold" is not riches; it is poison.

And this is what I mean by "rings true." The novelist and the filmmaker obviously knew something about MINING. They had the seen the devastation that it can bring--both to people and to the environment. This environmental detail is brilliant--ESPECIALLY in a Hollywood film made in 1948, long before any environmental movement in the U.S. The old, wise miner cares about where they are--cares about the creek, the mountain, the trees, the fish--and ultimately cares far more for the human beings in the vicinity, the local villagers, than for "gold." Fred C. Dobbs cares for nothing but his own fancied riches, and loses everything because he cannot overcome the isolation that a greed-based system imposes on him.

Again, I don't understand your question, "Why do you always make up these stories about places and people you don't know. Why do you suppose so much stupid aggressive shit on people?"

IF you are talking about American artists placing a work of fiction in Mexico, you might as well ask, "Why did Shakespeare write about ancient Rome, in 'Julius Caesar,' or why did Franz Kafka write a book called 'Amerika,' where he'd never been?" B. Traven and John Huston knew far more about Mexico than Shakespeare knew about Rome, or Kafka about America. But none of these WORKS OF THE IMAGINATION is invalidated because they are not documentaries or were not produced by the people who actually live in the countries that are named as FICTIONAL landscapes. That is a ridiculous requirement of a FICTIONAL work. And you think Traven/Huston were not being realistic when they invented Mexican banditos who would beat up and rob a crazy American who is himself consumed with greed, or that, by contrast, asserted that there were also GOOD people in the Sierra Madre mountains the 1920s (the villagers)? I'd make a literary criticism of it, that the contrast is a bit too stark, maybe even a bit simplistic (kind of like the "virgin/whore" dichotomy about women in some male fiction), but I can't deny the utter brilliance of this complex work of fiction because it doesn't tell us everything we might like to know about Mexico in the 1920s. The banditos are a bit exaggerated; so are the villagers. But then, so is Fred C. Dobbs! It is a PARABLE. I generally don't like parables, because they tend to oversimplify. But I like this one, because it is so well executed, so well told, and in the case of the film, so well-acted, so well-photographed, so well-directed and edited, and altogether such a beauty of a tale. It is full of heart. It's from the soul. And it is one the greatest efforts that American artists have ever made to look at our behavior toward the rest of the world, in the character of Mr. Fred C. Dobbs, and to posit something better: community.

We can discuss about La Rosa Blanca or Treasure of Sierra Madre later.

school population, and that running Catholic religious schools, as a means of recruitment, has been the on-going, "institution-building" premise of the rightwing, Vatican-controlled faction of the Venezuelan Church (the upper clergy). It also mentions the government subsidies. 10% is not a "monopoly" of schools, overall, but it is a monopoly of religious schools, and it has furthermore targeted the rich elite (which the article also discusses). In other words, the official Church sought to monopolize the education and affiliation of the power players of Venezuelan society, in particular, during the 1940s through the 1980s, and sought generally to "build the institution" through education, with public subsidies. Currently, they have opposed the creation of new public colleges (proposed and created by the Chavez government) because these rival their MONOPOLY on the education of the elite. A monopoly does not necessarily mean total control of a "market." It may mean controlling certain power levers within a given "market." Seeking to control the educated elite is such a power lever and it is monopolistic.

The article is mainly about the opposition between the religious orders (progressive) and the official Church (rightwing), with the former moving out of education and into the barrios, and the latter clinging to its "institution building" via schools, and the rise of evangelicals, both Protestant and Catholic, as rivals to the official Catholic Church. The Church hierarchy's goal, in this religious rivalry, is also to maintain a monopoly--i.e., to maintain its privileged status and its power levers.

You misunderstood my use of the word "monopoly." I was certainly aware that the Catholic Church does not "monopolize" ALL education in Venezuela, and that it has a rather more rocky history in Venezuela that in some other Latin American countries. The result of this rocky history (as this author points out) was a planned strategic Church policy of monopolizing education to the extent necessary to serve its goals of influence and power.

----------------------------------------------

The Catholic Church and Politics in Venezuela:
Resource Limitations, Religious Competition, and Democracy
by BRIAN FROEHLE

....The lack of class or institutional allies continued to be a pressing problem for the church. In this regard, the decision made during the early twentieth century to adopt the heavily institutional program followed in most of the Catholic world at the time had a special role in Venezuela. The building and promotion of educational institutions soon became by default the major rebuilding strategy of the Venezuelan church. This policy permitted the church to develop a constituency that could be counted on to identify its interests with those of the church.

Precisely during the time when Catholic schools began to expand dramatically, the incipient urban professional class was in a very fragile position. Although these middle sectors aspired to play a leading role in the transformation of Venezuela from a backward plantation society to an industrial, urbanized one, they were unable to reproduce themselves without education and were confronted by a notable absence of government schools. Their invaluable ally thus became the expanding, vigorous Catholic school system of low-cost, imported European teachers recruited from religious orders and congregations. By 1944, half of all students in secondary schools were in Catholic schools.(8) Once the state became more committed to education, this number would decrease significantly, but Catholic schools would continue to have a special place in the life of the urban middle classes. The relationship was mutual, and the church came to expect that it could rely on this group for defense when necessary. Precisely such a moment came when the government attempted to nationalize aspects of the church's school system in 1946 and 1947.(9) Threatened with the loss of its patient, arduous work of the previous half century, the church desperately committed its resources to what became virtually a crusade for survival that can only be understood in light of its previous losses. The church spearheaded a countermovement against the "communit and atheist" government -- and for the first time found itself on the winning side in a confrontation with the state. Indeed, when the existing government collapsed in 1948, a myth developed that it had failed largely because it had opposed the church.(10) In fact, the victory came about more through a coup led by military officers interested in eliminating the "radicalism" of the civilian government.

The shared preoccupation with communism characteristic of the church and succeeding military regimes during this period resulted in relatively more acceptance and freedom of action than had been the rule previously. With the definitive establishment of a democratic regime in 1958, church and state were also able to find common ground in their rejection of communism and interest in political stability. The leading party of the democratic transition -- precisely the despised adversary of the educational struggle a decade earlier -- had since purged itself of radical and anticlerical elements and sought the support of the church and its middle-class allies in shoring up the regime against guerrilla attacks and alleged Cuban infiltrations as well as conservative, antidemocratic opposition. For its part, the church came to accept its former enemies as preferable to what had occurred in Cuba. The church was able to increase its political prestige between the end of the dictatorship and the rise of democracy, confident that its declarations, no less than the forces it had mobilized, largely through the schools, had been key players in the successful birth of a new era of democratic politics.(11) Reflecting the new cordiality in church-state relations was the elimination in 1969 of the Law of Patronage, which was replaced with a definitive ecclesiastical status negotiated with the Vatican to the satisfaction of both parties.(12)

(SNIP)

.....a focus on institution building has implied that resources were to be committed not only in the short term but over the long term, thereby sacrificing a certain degree of flexibility. The schools that the religious communities conducted fit well with the ecclesiology of Christendom that prevailed until the aggiornamento of the 1960s. They were a closed universe, a fortress of Catholicism where students would be prepared to go out and do battle with an indifferent society that must in the end follow the lead of Catholicism. Such a worldview had a certain affinity with the prevailing model of religious life common at the time. If not "cloistered," then at least the model was for these groups of religious to live and teach on-site in their institution and devote themselves to their students and their spiritual development. This model found itself questioned as the "signs of the times" were read during the 1960s and Catholic leaders throughout the world reconsidered the direction of their past efforts. The effects of such reconsiderations would be all the more powerful in a country where such a single-minded effort had been devoted to the development of the schools, which until that moment had been an absolutely uncompromisable rebuilding strategy.

(SNIP)

...The most common response of the religious congregations to the dramatic postconciliar (Note: Vatican II) changes in orientation was to keep the existing schools open but to open no more, gradually shifting religious personnel from education to pastoral work in the dramatically expanding shantytowns of the major cities. In itself, this has been a most challenging task and, given institutional commitments, impossible to execute rapidly. Religious groups made little progress in detaching themselves from their educational institutions in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but by the early 1980s this process had advanced considerably.(21) Between 1978 and 1984 alone, the percentage of religious dedicated to educational activities declined from 51 percent to 28 percent.(22)

(NOTE from me: To sum up here, this became a left vs right split in the Venezuelan Church, starting in the 1960s between the religious orders, which de-emphasized recruitment to the Church through schools, and began engaging the poor directly to help empower the poor, and the rightwing Vatican-controlled ecclesia (cardinals, bishops, etc.) whose emphasis continued to be "institution building" (mostly through schools).)

(SNIP)

...Underlining the importance Catholic schools have had in building commitment to the Venezuelan Catholic church is the fact that 55 percent of those who reported attending mass at least once a month also reported having attended Catholic schools, although such schools have had less than 10 percent of the school-age population for decades.

(MORE)

http://www.domcentral.org/library/cleary_books/conflict/conflict06.htm

Conflict and Competition: The Latin American Church in a Changing Environment (Paperback)
by Edward L. Cleary (Author), Hannah Stewart-Gambino (Editor)

from the original subject. I've told her 100 times where I stand politically but it's useless.

Look how representative this dialog is. I'm telling her that the church has nothing of an education monopoly in Venezuela. She finally finds out that 20 years ago, only 10% of the schools were catholic and that in had been going on like that "for decades":

... which means Venezuela must be one of the Latin American countries where the catholic church has the smallest % of the education.

But reading her last post, I think she understood the idea, which is good after all.

Did the Chief Inquisitor expert on who's a leftist and who's not say THAT?
No WAaaaaaaaaaay! It's too much, too crazy. I can't believe it...

Orale wey!

:eyes:

"You still haven't been able to explain why I am blue."

The discussion wasn't about the guy's color, it was about his position in the political spectrum. I consider him slightly left of center. Evidently the left has a range, from orthodox communists like Juan Bautista Fuenmayor to just left of center individuals like say President Obama.

when he shoots off his mouth at the President.

Everytime he opens his mouth to attack Hugo Chavez someone needs to reiterate his part in that coup.

... oops, I mean hat.


About 700 women gathered Saturday at the nunciature (the troglodyte's cave lair) in Caracas to demand that his cardinalship (cardinalacy?) be revoked. The ladies said they could muster one million signatures.



Hugo and Cardinal Troglo once upon a time


Spanish:

http://www.abn.info.ve/node/4302

Great signs. These people have courage, and I hope they only get louder, and more determined. People like him need a good scare, and a reminder of what is expected to be his mission as a church leader, like the good martyred liberation theologists who lost their lives trying to speak up for the poor and helpless.

This pampered little puffball doesn't seem to be from the same planet as people like Archbishop Romero, and the others.

I hope they make a lot MORE noise.

Was reading remarks by Hugo Chavez, the foreign minister and the vice president of the party earlier tonight. Very harsh. Tomorrow will post if the news do not show up in English.

Am up late tonight tracking LAN Chile flight Miami-Santiago. Ms. Rabs in on the flight and as write this she has been in the air six hours seven minutes and will land in Santiago in 1 hour and 58 minutes. That puts her over southern Peru.

Meantime listening to cumbias

http://radio.batanga.com/es/radio/cumbia/listen

Hope Ms. Rabs has a good trip. That's a LONG trip from Miami, too.

Thanks for the link to cumbias, have never heard this before, looking forward to snapping it on while working on interent stuff starting today. Very interesting!

Chavez, Venezuelan church clash over freedoms
7/11/2010, 2:48 p.m. EDT
CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
The Associated Press

(AP) — CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez and leaders of the Venezuelan Catholic Church are tangling like never before, angering parishioners who feel the president and his clerical detractors aren't following Jesus Christ's creed of brotherly love.

Over the past week, Chavez has said that Christ would whip church leaders for lying. Cardinal Jorge Urosa countered he was right to warn the Vatican that Chavez is curbing freedoms.

Some parishioners are concerned over the tensions between Chavez and conservative priests, who are speaking out against what they see as the socialist leader's increasing authoritarianism. Venezuela is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. Polls consistently show the church, which wields significant influence, is among the nation's most respected institutions.

"I don't like the insults that Chavez hurled against the cardinal, but I don't like seeing the Church getting involved in politics either," said Amanda Ortiz, 47, after going to Sunday Mass at a church in downtown Caracas. "Both sides are losing respect for each other."

During one recent speech, Chavez accused Urosa of misleading the Vatican with warnings that Venezuela is drifting toward dictatorship. During another public address, he urged the Vatican to replace Urosa, while heaping praise on a government-friendly priest he thinks should be appointed cardinal.

"May God forgive him, because he knows that he's lying. The cardinal who accuses me of running roughshod over the constitution knows that he's lying," Chavez said. "If Christ were to physically appear, what would he do with them? I have no doubt that he'd whip them."

Chavez, who served as an altar boy growing up in Venezuela's sun-baked plains region, remains a Catholic and sometimes jokes that he could have become a priest himself. He also often declares that his government's policies are strikingly similar to values outlined in the Bible.

More:
http://www.silive.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/base/international-34/127887609349400.xml&storylist=international

Chavez calls bishops 'cave dwellers'
By PASCAL FLETCHER, Reuters
Last Updated: July 15, 2010 12:18am

CARACAS - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Wednesday rebuffed criticism from Catholic bishops by ordering a review of diplomatic ties with the Vatican and declaring that the pope is "no ambassador of Christ on earth."

His comments, in which he also called Venezuelan bishops "cave dwellers," followed a weeklong dispute between the leftist leader and the local Roman Catholic Church hierarchy. It has accused him of trying to impose Cuban-style communism in the Latin American oil producer.

Chavez says Venezuelan Cardinal Jorge Urosa and his bishops are siding with the political opposition in their attacks on his socialist revolution.

His critics denounce government harassment of foes, takeovers of private companies and strategic nationalizations.

Addressing a campaign meeting of his ruling PSUV party focused on legislative elections in September, Chavez said his critics in the local Catholic leadership were "assuming a role of state that doesn't correspond to them."

"They think they're a power above the state. Well, you can forget that, you cave dwellers," he shouted.

More:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2010/07/14/14717006.html