He actually does teach.
What no one realizes (or cares) is that his subjects have nothing to with politics but with linguistics.
What amazes me is that his credibility in one subject somehow translates into other subjects.
Even worse is that he is a proven hypocrite.
"He explained that the majority of Americans receive little or no information at all about the achievements of the Bolivarian revolution led by President Hugo Chavez, because the mass media only highlight the negative side and remain silent about the positive."
I would argue the exact opposite really.
Chavez has done very little for the poor in his country, poverty has increased nearly ten percent during his tenure (until he had the measures changed). Public housing builds are at an all time low in comparison to former regimes, (who did not have the luxury of ultra high oil revenues and complete control of the oil). I have personally seen the food that Chavez sells at a discount to people and it is of substandard quality compared to the normal market goods. In addition, critical infrastructure such as bridges and highways are falling apart...and certainly the poor cannot afford the cost of using the alternate routes to the coast and airport areas.
Has anyone else here even heard of the small sample of negative things that I just wrote above? Probably not. Because the majority of US media only cover Hugo Chavez when he makes a wild claim like "the us is going to invade" (for the millionth time).
Read the local Venezuelan newspapers and you will find a HUGE amount of information that is not reported here.
http://www.vcrisis.com
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/
http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/
Read the articles in these blogs and you will be chilled as to the inevitable direction in which Chavez is taking a beautiful country. Read the details on the recall referendum, read the countless stories of corruption and political purges. Read the details of the destruction of liberty and free speech.
Chavez is the next Castro and probably worse, but the left in this country and others are so caught up in their hatred of Bush that they are willing to embrace ANYONE as long as he represents some form of opposition to Bush.
What a sad standard to have. How can one call themself a "liberal" and still be willing to embrace someone who is knifing liberty in the spine in Venezuela?