Mrs. K talks about moral and ethics by Teodoro Petkoff

April 21, 2010

To round off the events of April 19,  a “happening” was staged in the National Assembly.

It was as partisan and sectarian an act as the military parade in Los Proceres had been. An election campaign rally. The  cap off the bottle (la tapa del frasco) was the invited speaker, which was Mrs. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

That a Kirchner would have been entrusted this honor would not have anything objectionable, since the first steps of independence in South America were close together in time in our country and the continent’s southern tip.

But Mrs. K was not the indicated person. She is no example of probity. Both she and her husband have been identified as having committed serious crimes against public funds in their country.

The multiplication of their fortune in the years they have been at the Casa Rosada is under investigation by the justice of their country.

To make matters worse, the case of Antonini’s suitcase (Maletagate) made very clear the murky links between PDVSA and Enarsa, the oil company in Argentina, and between Argentine and Venezuelan ministers and other senior Argentine officials in that scam.

While here in Venezuela, for a change, no instance of Justice showed any awareness of the details of this scam, the courts in Argentina have advanced some research that catches one-eyed Kirchner and his wife in a compromising position.

Elementary prudence would not have given Cristina Fernandez the opportunity to deploy all her skills and formidable histrionic cynicism that is needed, with such a criminal record, to go on the podium of the National Assembly to pontificate with such high doses of moral advise on the origins of our countries.

39 Responses to “Mrs. K talks about moral and ethics by Teodoro Petkoff”

  1. FlewNeelf Says:

    A clean fast is better than a dirty breakfast. moulkFumlor

  2. An Interested Observer Says:

    Arturo, I don’t have a problem with poor translations, because those of us who understand this was a translation can work around it. The statement can only be false if it were false in the original. So while I do indeed have a problem with false statements (such that if your principles are dependent on false statements, then your principles are undependable), this isn’t one.

    Another thing I do have a problem with (though clearly you don’t) is people who ignore the central theme to focus on a non-essential point. The “criminal record” issue is non-essential, for reasons I stated above. But try this: ignore that phrase completely, and comment on the rest of the post. Because doing what you are doing is mendacious in itself.

    The author (who is not Miguel Octavio) would be lying if his entire premise were wrong, not because one point comes out badly when translated (and probably translated by an online translator – do you put your full faith in those? – or hastily). You, on the other hand, are lying by deception when you argue against the entire premise by attempting to disqualify one single statement, while ignoring the truth behind the statement and, indeed, the entire rest of the text.

    That is, you have commended the ingredients of your poisoned chalice to your own lips (MacBeth). At least if you are willing to apply “even-handed justice” (i.e., live by the standard you apply to others). I confess I have my doubts, though I wouldn’t object to being proven wrong.

  3. Gringo Says:

    miguel octavio:
    your posting about Argentine corruption reminded me of what an Argentine working in Venezuela told me. In both countries you needed to bribe to survive, he told me. He preferred the Venezuelan system, where officials were quite open about soliciting bribes. My experience with Venezuelan traffic cops supports this. Whereas in Argentina, he told me, officials would not explicitly state the need for a bribe. This put you in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. If you assumed that no bribe was being requested, and you didn’t offer one, you didn’t get what you needed done. OTOH, if you offered a bribe to an honest official, assuming that the official expected a bribe even though he didn’t ask for one, you were in double trouble.

  4. Alirio Escalona Says:

    I completely disagree with the author that Mrs. Cristina Fernandez was not the indicated person to be the keynote speaker on April 19th because of her corruption record, on the contrary given the way Venezuela is run by a gang of corrupted individuals, I think that she was perfect for the job.

  5. GeorgeS Says:

    Arturo: You post, you post and you post and you say absolutely nothing.

    And as Miguel said you don’t even read the posts. Have you noticed yet Miguel did not write this post? So are you criticizing Miguel or Petkoff? That is how stupid your comments are usually.

    And NOBODY here finds any virtue in having a cheap arepa subsidized by the Government. And you think it is inane, but it is not, YOU told us how you shut down a pharmacy for a 30% increase without justification, why does this not apply to the arepera? How can they justify it it except to say that the price was and is still stupid. You defend blindly anything the Government does and YOU PROVIDE NO IFORMATION OR DISCUSSSION.

    Th fact is that y`our defense of Mrs. K as a speaker on morals is absolutely silly.

    You are a fucking troll (Miguel erase the fucking if you dont like it)

  6. moctavio Says:

    Read the posts Read the Posts Read the Posts

    You dont even read the posts,


  7. Arturo Says:

    Observer – so you do not have a problem with false statements being made if it supports your views? For you pointing them out is “quibbling” (whatever that means)? Saying that CK has a criminal record is a false statement and you know it.

    The problem is that the latent intolerance in the comments section means that our honorable author cannot be questioned even though he knows he is lying to make his point – as do readers like you who support him and partake of the poison chalice of mendacity. (Shakespeare, I believe).

  8. An Interested Observer Says:

    Arturo, like I said, you’re quibbling over something that got added in translation, not something that was part of the original statement.

    loroferoz: “I would rather be naked than such a clown”.

    Thie reminds me of the PETA ads, “I’d rather go naked than wear fur.” Perhaps we could update this.

    How about, “I’d rather be naked than act like an Emperor”?

  9. Kolya Says:

    Carlos Rangel’s “Del Buen Salvaje al Buen Revolucionario” is indeed a great book. Unfortunately the English translation of it is rather clunky. If remember correctly, Rangel himself was the translator. Even good translations suffer by comparison to the original, but such a good book deserves a better and more elegant translation. Of course it is better to read it English than not to read it at all.

  10. Arturo Says:

    I suggest loboferoz that you read my comments. I never said that CK was an appropriate choise as oradora. I simply object to MO writing things which are not true. She has no criminal record and until she is found guilty in a tribunal it stays like that.

    According to MO if you are being investigated you are automatically guilty or discredited. Typical fascist way of thinking by our “brilliant” author.

    Regarding the inane question abou the arepa socialista. The answer is to expropiate it for speculation even though at Bs.F 7.5 it is still the cheapest arepa in town!

  11. loroferoz Says:

    So, to reply to Arturo.

    Would it have been kosher, to invite Carlos Andres Perez to speak about deontology of public funds management before he was removed in March 1993?

    Oh, CAP could yet chair a forum on nonlethal techniques for riot control and peaceful conflict resolution! Never convicted on THAT rap…

    And yes, we could invite Silvio Berlusconi and Giulio Andreotti to host a conference on preventing and curbing the influence of organized crime on politics. They have never been convicted of anything. Under investigation for a very long time, yes, who cares…

    Fidel Castro and Augusto Pinochet on freedom of expression and humane treatment of inmates? Never convicted!

    George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld on thorough intelligence collection and analysis, transparent and honest representation of data? No one got them either…

    Bill Clinton on sexual harassment and propriety with subordinates? Never convicted either.

    No “criminal record”, that’s true. But you would do better than cast doubt on your bona fide in such an obvious manner.

  12. Roberto N Says:

    Carlos, te lo voy a decir en español para que no tengas dudas:
    Me parece poco util decir que la Sra. K merece ser oradora de orden para el 19 de Abril por no ha sido sentenciada.

    Ella y su esposo estan siendo investigados por corrupcion en su pais por varias causas. Cuando uno escoge un orador de orden para una fecha patria, uno deberia escoger a alguien pulcro y sin ningun viso de falta de moral o etica. El Arturo nos pretende decir que eso esta bien, porque no se ha pronunciado una sentencia en contra de ella. Si en su propio pais la estan investigando por corrupcion, ella no es una person moralmente pulcra, hasta que se diga lo contrario. Basta ya de aguantar que se inhabiliten candidatos cuando no hay sentencia firme en contra de ellos. Aqui, estamos aplicando la misma logica, y el se queja! O es chicha o es limonada.

  13. Roger Says:

    Kepler: Here it is
    Yes do pass it around. I was there in the early mid 90″s it was just like the video. We were at one place and they had 5 gallon jugs of mercury! Illegal as hell even then.

  14. CARLOS Says:

    Sorry, insteed of I can be a Chavez fanatic, must said He must be a Chavez fanatic, in the first sentence of the phragraph

  15. CARLOS Says:

    Why anybody here has not answer the question Arturo said? I can be a Chavez fanatic, but the tru is if you are not convited in a court you are not a criminal person. I have spent minutes reading stupid sentences about Arturo and no one, including MO has says anything.

    PS: I am not arturo, or a family or relate person, just I am tired of the intolerance in this country

  16. Gringo Says:

    As Arturo uses “criminal record” in the sense that it is used in the US- convictions- then he is most likely a PSF.

    Regarding Kristina and Nestor, an improvised, unofficial line in the Peronista hymn “Los Muchachos Peronistas” is “Hijo de puto o ladrón, queremos Perón.” So, Nestor and Kristina are only doing what good Peronistas do. Family tradition, and all that. Just like all that acreage in Barinas.

    Del Salvaje al Buen Revolucionario is only available under “snippet view” from Google Books, which means that it can be viewed only on a line by line basis. Ex: if you know that “Allende hizo muchas cosas” is in the book, you can query for that, but that is about all you can see. It will give you no more than two lines at a time. OK if you are using it to document something in the book, but no good for reading the whole thing.

    Fortunately, its English version , The Latin Americans: their love-hate relationship with the United States , is available under “limited view,” which means many or most of its pages are viewable.

    I agree with Carlos and Miguel that this book is a masterpiece.

  17. Arturo Says:

    The fact still remains that CK does not have a criminal record as stated in the last paragraph of the post, despite all ths spin about “compelling evidence”. Q.E.D.

  18. concerned Says:

    “Just a question, why do you waste your time replying to Arturo…?”

    It’s easy and somehow satisfying to vent some of the anger triggered by current events at fools like Arturo.

    Like the old computer pop up game “Whack a Mole”, only it’s called “Whack a Troll”.

  19. Kepler Says:

    OT again but very related to Venezuela: one of Miguel’s readers put up some weeks ago a link to a video about El Dorado and gold exploitation in the Gran Sabana. I would like to incorporate it to a post on the whole pollution topic in the Caroní basin, but I can’t find it.
    It could be great if that someone reposted it or sent it to

  20. Carirubana Says:

    Just a question, why do you waste your time replying to Arturo…?

  21. Thank you for the information.

  22. Miguel,

    Could you perhaps tell me at what rate to the USD foreign company subsidiaries in Venezuela are allowed to pay dividends to their parent companies in 2010 regarding 2009 profits?

    2.6 or 4.3?

    Thank you.

    Nicolaas Smith

  23. Eric Lavoie Says:

    “Arturo: You still have not told us if to complete your brilliant and epic story about Indepabis, if you went to it to ask that the Arepera Socialista be shutdown for increasing prices by 50%.”

    Lol bada bing bada boom! lol that is called a burn. I doubt arturo would do that to such a great endeavour.

  24. Antonio Says:

    Poor Arturo, He thinks like Chavez, that socialisms (or communist what you are really want) will save The Earth.

    Sure it saves the Soviet Union. And China is (really sure) applying communist text books in its economy.

    You have to be a devil’s advocate to wants Hell on Planet Earth.

    Chavez regime it is not socialism, looks more like a mix of “stealcialism” with communist.

    “Stealcialims”, communist, socialism will not save Venezuela. I am sure they will not save The Planet.

  25. loroferoz Says:

    “It’s a simple matter of understanding that the King’s clothes are really beautiful (he’s not naked)”

    It would be more palatable if the King were naked here. Maybe there is some dignity that you can have naked. There is none whatsoever in full Mussolini (or is it Qaddafi?) drag and riding a Cadillac, pretending to be a military officer and a president and acting like neither. I would rather be naked than such a clown.

  26. Carlos Says:

    Miguel, I assume you had the opportunity to read DE BUEN SALVAJE A BUEN REVOLUCIONARIO ..
    Take a look again.. It explains why we have a Chavez and why most of South american leaders (like CK) are criminals. I still wonder how Mr. Rangel wrote such an accurate diagnostic of our “revolucion” 30 years earlier. I cannot indeed understand how venezuelan opposition leaders were not able to read between the lines this “caudillo” back in 1998 and stop the revolution mess from the very take off.
    Here’s a link for newcomers introducing a book reprint .. Read it and then look for the book

  27. GeorgeS Says:

    Oh Arturo, how silly can you be? Does Ramirez have a criminal record? Remember “La Maleta”? Maybe next year they can invite Antonini to give the speech, he is not even being investigated in Venezuela.

  28. vendoc Says:

    To our esteemed reader, Arturo….Chavez has a criminal record and I’m sure you know the dates and details of conviction. So your point must be that Kirchner was definitely more qualified than Chavez to speak. Perhaps you are right. Thanks for pointing out that Chavez is not only a criminal that hasn’t been held accountable YET for his current crimes but is a real criminal with a history of conviction and time in prison.

  29. Kepler Says:

    A month or two ago there were a series of excellent articles in The Economist about many of the Kirchner business deals.

    I wonder what is in Arturo’s mind. Is he just stupid and as fanatic as a religious fundamentalist or is it something else?

    Arturito, can you tell us a little bit about your background just once? I know it is OT, but I think it would be very telling. Do you have sisters called Indira or Vladimira, brothers called Fidel or Ilich? Was your dad a member of the Venezuelan guerrillas? Or did he come from Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship? Or are you actually a gringo/European PSF?

    Also: did you study sociology or something like that at the UCV or political studies at the USB?

  30. An Interested Observer Says:

    It hasn’t been proven by a court…yet. Really, your only complaint is one of semantics, in that the phrase “criminal record” has a connotation in English which isn’t what the author intended. Something was inadvertently added in the translation, and that’s all you can focus on.

    If you really have a complaint, then please address why she IS the correct person to “pontificate with such high doses of moral advise” (advice).

  31. moctavio Says:

    Yes Arturo, the maletas were not for her, their fortune was made while they were in power, but fools like you resort to legal technisisms when tehy have no more arguments.

    Has it been proven by a Court that you are a fool, an idiot and a fanatic?

    No, but the evidence is compelling.

  32. Antonio Says:

    The only truth is the Kitchners have grown their fortune by 7 to 9 times in 7 years. Their fortune double per year basis.

    Good revolutionary marriage!!, They so incline to socialistic ideals!!.

    As usual you can find a lot of evidence in Google, look for: fortuna de los Kirchner

  33. Roberto N Says:

    Dear Arturo:

    Read the post, Arturo, then comment. It works better that way.

    It says: “…have been identified as having committed serious crimes…”

    Identified is the step prior to being judged, and then either found innocent or guilty.

    Later:”..While here in Venezuela, for a change, no instance of Justice showed any awareness of the details of this scam, the courts in Argentina have advanced some research that catches one-eyed Kirchner and his wife in a compromising position.”

    By compromising position, I don’t think it refers to something found in the Kama Sutra.

    That a nation’s leader that has been identified as such is given such an honor is an indictment in and of itself of the probity of our government.

    But then again, Arturo lives in “el mundo al reves” so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

  34. Arturo Says:

    One question for our esteeemed author – does Cristina Fernández de Kirchner have a “criminal record” as stated clearly in the final paragraph of your post? if so, please provide the date of conviction by a court in Argentina. Thanking you in advance.

  35. Otro Roberto Says:

    “… It was as partisan and sectarian an act as the military parade in Los Proceres had been. … But Mrs. K was not the indicated person. She is no example of probity. … Elementary prudence would not have given Cristina Fernandez the opportunity to deploy all her skills and formidable histrionic cynicism …”

    I believe that she is an quite idoneous selection for a speaker given the moral character and convictions of the people present at the act, even if the Congress (I am using the old name quite on purpose) should have remained as a place to speak in defense of the truth and/or ideals to improve the living standards of the people in Venezuela.

  36. Jesus Says:

    “At times, I try to think myself into the mind of a sincere Revolucionario. But still I fail to see how a sectarian, authoritarian, and mainly opaque and untruthful present is going to yield a future of altruism and moral worth. Maybe I have not seen the light.”

    It’s a simple matter of understanding that the King’s clothes are really beautiful (he’s not naked), their fabric is the finest there is (dammit, he’s not naked!), the golden threads woven with the skill of the greatest seamstress in the world (I told you already, he’s not naked!), they make him look so brave and god-like (stop saying he’s naked, are you insane or something?!?!), they’re so wonderful and marvelous that anyone who sees them is speechless in awe (not because they can see his tiny little dick, because he’s most certainly not naked!!!). Obviously any sane person must agree that the King’s clothes are wonderful (otherwise it means you’re insane and need to be locked up in an asylum).

    (By the way, if Quico and/or JC read this: the captcha went kaput at CC, so no anonymous comments or new users until they fix it.)

  37. loroferoz Says:

    Moral and Ethics… mmm… I thought that these were matters whence you gain attention and respect by being

    -Transparent in all senses, so as to make clear that you do not cheat?
    -Committed to the truth, no matter where it might come from?
    -Tolerant of all criticism, because it might be truthful and thus useful?

    Sure, we can find these virtues and more in the Bolivarian Revolution and in the Kirchner administration… can we? can we?

    If so, Cristina is perfectly qualified to speak of moral and ethics.

    If not, this is as contradictory as the Bolivarian Revolution is going to get.

    At times, I try to think myself into the mind of a sincere Revolucionario. But still I fail to see how a sectarian, authoritarian, and mainly opaque and untruthful present is going to yield a future of altruism and moral worth. Maybe I have not seen the light.

  38. Antonio Says:

    he first thing come to my mind is the lost of the sovereignty of the act.

    Cristina came from a country not liberate by Bolivar, and provably she did not know nothing about the Venezuelan independency movement. She was not a person with the knowledge or relate in any manner to this act.

    Some people still belief that in 19th April we celebrate the declaration of independence from Spain (that is in 5th of July). I am not clear is Cristina is aware of the difference.

    Looks like Chavez and Cuba want to us get used to they can do whatever they like to celebrate, without any shame, any act of The State or of The Nation, in manipulated ways by a political ideology, without any sovereignty as a nation.

    200 years later, we celebrate what we do not have.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: