Venezuela: Deadly massage (interesting article from The Economist)

[WriteDown]

ONE of Hugo Chávez’s lesser-known feats since taking over as Venezuela’s leader in 1999 is to have presided over a tripling of the annual homicide rate—and that’s according to the official statistics. Last year more than 13,000 people were killed in a country of 27m, producing a murder rate of 48 per 100,000, the second highest in the world (after El Salvador). In neighbouring Colombia, a country plagued by guerrilla war and drug violence, the rate was 40 per 100,000.

Not surprisingly, violent crime far outweighs the other worries of Venezuelans. Three-quarters of them describe it as the worst problem now facing the country, polls show. “The first thing we need to do”, says José Vicente Rangel, Mr Chávez’s former vice-president, “is confess our failure.”

He claims that the government, opposition, media and criminologists are all equally to blame. But, as critics point out, Mr Chávez controls most of the security forces, as well as the prisons; the courts and the prosecution service are in effect branches of the executive, too. Luis Cedeño, head of Incosec, a public-security think-tank, accuses the government of showing a “total lack of political interest” in tackling crime. But with crucial local elections due in November, even Mr Chávez has begun to worry.


http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11750858

[redqueen]

1. Wow... this thing is really being pushed hard.

"National sources"

hmm

[WriteDown]

2. These are the stats from the govt.

That is why they are cited as national sources.

[redqueen]

3. Yeah.

Enjoy your stay.

[WriteDown]

5. Uh...

My stay? I've been here redqueen. Do you even bother to read the articles?

[redqueen]

10. Yeah... you've been here just over 4 weeks. (nt)

[Judi Lynn]

4. It's cyclical. They alternate it with other claims. It's been around multiple times,

rotating in and out with other claims they make against Chavez, like Venezuela harbors FARCs, Venezuela's poor are not better off with Chavez, Chavez is "Cubanizing" Venezuela, Chavez is indoctrinating the school children in communism, Chavez is an anti-Semite, Chavez is wrecking the economy, Chavez is militarizing the country, etc., etc., etc.

As soon as people point out the fallacy of the last charge, they drag out the next one, and start all over again. Dregs, scum, fascist a-holes have far too much time on their hands, and a record of failure, and neglect themselves. They are sincerely disliked for their loathesome abuse of power against the interests of the huge poor majority.

[redqueen]

8. And isn't it nice that so many outlets are willing to help push it.

Gotta catapult that stuff, baby. It ain't gonna sell itself.

[WriteDown]

9. But these are the official statistics...

Not a claim of any sort. So I take it from your reply that you are saying that Chavez's govt is putting out false data?

[EFerrari]

17. Yup. The right wing nutcases are using this (while they sponsor

violent crime) and food shortages (while they sabotage food distribution).

There's nothing new under the sun, is there? :hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Well, if it's Hugo's fault, the people will probably vote him out.

Venezuela is a democracy, despite the U.S. efforts to undermine it.

[Greyhound]

7. Google Luis Cedeño and find out the background of the source for this propaganda piece.

There is a lot of violence there and it is caused primarily by the ruling class fighting for their power, in case you didn't know it they have their own very heavily armed private military "security forces", this is to be expected.

[WriteDown]

11. The background?

You mean the official govt statistics?

[Greyhound]

15. IOW, you're not interested in the whole story and would rather parrot

corporate propaganda than engage in discussion.

Thanks for the warning, enjoy your stay.

[Judi Lynn]

12. You're absolutely right! They hire their own mercenaries to use against the poor,

just as they have done in Colombia.

You really have to read a lot of articles on Venezuela before you ever see anything mentioned about it, and I can see why. It's nothing to celebrate, among civilized people. Very glad to see you mentioned it.

[WriteDown]

13. Or you could actually go there....

I travelled throughout Central America about 5 years ago on a govt function. A little first hand knowledge would enlighten many.

[EFerrari]

18. Maybe you need to make better use of your own experience

and ask yourself why such a slanted piece would be put out by The Economist. Qui bono?

[Peace Patriot]

14. "But, as critics point out, Mr Chávez controls most of the...."

What critics point this out? Ah, the fuckwad fascist opposition, funded by the fuckwads in the White House (with our tax dollars), and presented in this, as in other fuckwad articles, as the anonymous, all-purpose "his critics say"!

And this fuckwad article even adds anonymous "experts."

Their fuckwad purpose is more openly stated than usual (last line): "But full-scale institutional reform may require a change of mind, or even government, at national level."

They were so slavering to get to this point--that the murder rate should bring down the government--that they left out the word "the" (change of government at THE national level). Fuckwads can't even write any more.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Is he not allowed to have critics, and is it not possible for a critic to have a valid point?

Or for a critic not to be automatically a part of the "fascist opposition"?

Is any critic suspect in your eyes? A democratically elected leader should be open to SOME criticism and it shouldn't be a threat to his government to acknowledge that he ain't perfect and some stuff needs work.

[Peace Patriot]

22. Actually, the interior minister engaged in a lot of SELF-criticism on the high murder rate.

Sure, criticism is fine. Anyone can say anything they like--and popular leaders like Chavez need criticism more than anyone. I'm talking about corporate 'news' propaganda, and their FREQUENTLY used, sneaky, slimy, disreputable use of "his critics say" to avoid any real discussion or understanding of the situation. If they quoted sources, then those being criticized could answer them, and there would be a dialogue. "His critics say" presents those being criticized with a corporate wall against thoughtful, democratic discussion.

A couple of years ago, I began noticing ubiquitous phraseology in the corporate 'news' as follows (of Chavez): "His critics say" that he is "increasingly authoritarian." Never any attribution. Never anybody that Chavez, his government or his supporters could argue with. So I did a news search, looking for the origins of this charge. And you know what I found out? ONLY ONE PERSON had actually said this--that Chavez was "increasingly authoritarian"--and it was a Venezuela Catholic Cardinal who had spent his career in the Vatican finance office, and got fired in the fascist banking scandals of the 1980s. He was an old fascist (now deceased) who regularly railed against Chavez from the pulpit (and, as it turns out, the reason was that Chavez had cut government subsidies of Church programs), and was allied with a couple of the most rightwing bishops in Venezuela (the ones who signed the coup decree in 2002, that dissolved the Constitution, the courts, the legislature and all civil rights).

But I imagine that Bush/Cheney's State Department was also whispering this crap into the willing ears of corporate 'news' reporters, along with Cardinal Lara. "His critics say...". I also, in my research, found a mountain of evidence that Chavez is NOT authoritarian, "increasingly" or otherwise. Evidence that gets no mention and no weight, in these kinds of 'news' articles, to oppose what "his critics say."

IF we had even half-decent reporting of what this party said, or that party said, and IF the corporate 'news' monopolies had even a shred of an intention of promoting democratic discussion, and IF the general public, the poor, the workers, the oppressed and all who benefit from leftist government had a fair say in the news media, THEN criticism--of any politician--would useful and beneficial. But this wall of fascist puke that we're getting from the corporate 'news' monopolies is NOT freedom of speech. It does NOT promote democratic discussion. It is rife with lies, black holes where information and context should be, and propaganda tricks--and one of those tricks is "his critics say..." (or "as critics point out...").

WHO is REALLY saying this? Bush, Cheney, Negroponte, Exxon Mobil, Venezuela's rich minority and Cardinal Lara! BUT THEY DON'T TELL YOU THAT! "His critics say" is the CEO of the Associated Pukes or the Wall Street Journal, et al, IN AGREEMENT with these fascist fuckwads who are destroying our country and are trying to destroy South American democracy as well.

How can you have a discussion with a Puke-y corporate wall of noise? Where is the debate in "his critics say" (or "as critics point out")? These corporate 'news' monopolists SIDE WITH the anonymous critics, and then conspire to hide them behind the curtain.

That is not freedom of speech. That is not debate. That is not discussion. That is not criticism. That is not meant to be helpful. That does not promote democracy and accountability. That is BULLSHIT--and it benefits no one but war profiteers and global corporate predators.

[Dogtown]

16. Another boring Chavez basher.

Why do *you* people waste your time with this trash?

We're not going to listen to cant from RW jerks with a clear agenda.

[Pastiche423]

19. Did you think bringing this article to GD

would get you different replies?

Either educate yourself or STFU.

[LittleClarkie]

20. You know something. If this article was about Bush and was presented in the same way

People wouldn't even question it and would swallow it whole without questioning the credibility of the source or suggesting people get the whole story or suggesting it was a propaganda piece.

If an article is about someone we're not fond of already, like Pelosi, Bush, etc, we're much more liable to just take it and run.

It would be nice if journalistic integrity was insisted upon across the board, and not just on behalf of people we might happen to like.

[redqueen]

23. Journalistic integrity is being insisted on across the board.

What makes you think otherwise?