Venezuela’s Opposition: Manufacturing Fear in Exchange for Votes

Venezuela’s Opposition: Manufacturing Fear in Exchange for Votes
Written by Lainie Cassel
Wednesday, 01 September 2010 11:19

“Venezuela, more deadly than Iraq” read a headline in the New York Times on Aug. 23 – a headline of such shock value that it can only mean one thing: it’s election time in Venezuela. Inside Venezuela, similar headlines are printed almost daily in corporate media with the upcoming September 26 national assembly elections. Coincidentally, the Venezuelan corporate media and their allies among the Western press continually draw on the same crime statistics “leaked” from unidentified government sources or compiled by rightwing NGO’s.

The point of the articles is not to illuminate the real crime problem in Venezuela, but rather to persuade potential voters during the election campaign. Corporate media in Venezuela, which is owned by wealthy elites largely opposed to President Hugo Chavez, has continually used fear as a way to create an atmosphere of insecurity in an attempt to generate votes during elections.

~snip~
History of Media and Violence

A look back to before Chavez was elected in 1999 helps give context to the current challenges facing Caracas today. One of the wealthiest countries in Latin American largely due to its immense oil reserves, Venezuela also became known for its drastic inequalities of wealth. After the implementation of numerous neoliberal policies that cut social programs and raised the price of basic goods, many of the city’s poor were forced to turn to gangs and illegal activities. Police corruption and easy access to guns created a sense of chaos in the streets. In The Street is my Home, the Venezuelan author Patricia C. Marquez reports on research she conducted on violence in Caracas in the 1990’s:

“In effect, Caracas, is now in a state of siege. The walls that surround the properties of the well-to-do grow higher and higher, and even among the less well off and the poor, there is anxiety, uncertainty, and hopelessness. But while some seek to protect themselves in their fortresses, others cannot escape the bullets flying inside their thin rancho wall.” However, as Marquez claims, the media largely underreported the violence. She notes that, “The violence in Caracas is much more serious than anything portrayed in the media.” Before 1999, the media, she continues, underplayed “the dimension of the problem to avoid disturbing the public.”

When I spoke with Julio Cesar Velasco, the former civil boss of a poor barrio in central Caracas, he reaffirmed Marquez’ remarks: “Before President Chavez the media reported one of every hundred killings.” However, now he argues, “the media reports every killing a hundred times.”

Yet one NGO, the “Venezuelan Observatory of Violence” (OVV) claims to use media as a method to generate statistics. Numbers published by the OVV, which is run by a right-wing opposition member, Roberto Briceño León, are widely quoted in numerous articles including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Strangely both articles were printed this month even though Reuters reported the same statistics in March of this year.3

Another report published in 2008 by Foreign Policy magazine claimed that according to “official” statistics, Caracas was one of the “Murder capitals of the World”. Mary O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal also quotes supposed “leaked” official reports in a piece published last week. Both articles fail to offer an explanation as how they obtained statistics that were not published and showed no investigation into their validity.

Furthermore, it is unclear what percentage of the actual murders is gang related, has been perpetrated by the police themselves or is a result of violence that has spilled over from the Colombian conflict. Reports also ignore vital information on how the data is collected and the background and funding of organizations such as the OVV. By denying the root causes and steps taken by the administration to solve the problem, the articles mislead the reader into believing the problem of violence was manufactured by Chavez. However, this would not be the first time the New York Times and other corporate media outlets have used questionable statistics. Simon Romero, whose article in the New York Times argues Venezuela is more dangerous than Iraq, uses the group Iraq Body Count as the basis for his statistics. However, the World Health Organization says deaths are over three times higher than what the Iraq Body Count claims. Surely, Romero, who lives comfortably in Caracas, does not think he would be safer in Baghdad?

Government Policies to Improve Security

Since Chavez took office over 11 years ago, numerous policies have been experimented with to tackle the violence. More general policies meant to battle poverty, specifically the social missions, which provide healthcare, education, jobs and rehabilitation centers (to list a few) to Venezuelan citizens, have had positive results.

Since the initiation of the programs, poverty has dropped in half and youth have new alternatives to a life on the street. However, with easy access to weapons, gun crime remains common and impunity often leads to repeat offenders. Tackling that issue, however, has been difficult in part because the corruption of the Metropolitan Police of Caracas (PM).

The PM has a long history of involvement in the murder, torture and oppression of youth and much of this violence has continued under Chavez. According to statistics from the government, not only in Caracas but also around Venezuela, police are responsible for some 15-20% of criminal activity.

More:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/venezuela-archives-35/2670-venezuelas-opposition-manufacturing-fear-in-exchange-for-votes-

Now they blame the Metropolitcan Police of Caracas. It seems they are grasping for excuses now, as the elections approach, and the opposition rightly points out the crime wave surged during the Chavez administration.

--and that is a serious political problem in Venezuela created by the rightwing--its extremism, lying, hysteria, incompetence, lack of a positive platform, name-calling, ugliness, hatred, history of coup-mongering and dependence on the corpo-fascist press for trumpeting its extremist views--rather like the "tea bagger" rightwing here.

Your posts are a lot like the rightwing here and in Venezuela. You recently compared Hugo Chavez to Adolph Hitler, and you called investigative reporter Eva Golinger "Goerring." Those are "Alice in Wonderland" assertions, as crazy, unreal and wrong as the "Red Queen" ordering the white roses to be PAINTED red.

I've seen constructive criticism of the Chavez government from the left--at sites like venezuelanalysis.com--and none from the right, anywhere, ever. The right and its corpo-fascist 'news' facilitators emit venom and twisted, distorted lies. This is not criticism. It is nuts. It is not real. And it is not aimed at real discussion. It's like the "tea baggers" and their obsession with Obama's birth certificate or insanely insisting that he's a Muslim. It is PSYOPS--that is, terrorist tactics on the political level. And, to our shame, we see such tactics here, about Chavez, in the pages of once credible newspapers like the New York Slimes and the Wall Street Urinal, which have earned these new designations, by me, precisely because of their egregious maltreatment of Chavez. Simon Romero's "Venezuela, More Deadly Than Iraq" is an example of this slimebag 'journalism.' And Mary O'Grady at the Urinal is even worse.

When you have once credible, once reliable, once prestigious newspapers and other news outlets doing your intellectual work for you--lying for you--you don't have to think, you don't have to devise thoughtful policy, you don't have to solve problems and you don't have to engage in reasonable debate. You can be lazy, stupid "know-nothings," on the USAID dole, and just wait around for the CIA to put you back in power. That is my opinion of the rightwing in Venezuela. It is intellectually bankrupt, extremely corrupt and is doing a great disservice to the people of Venezuela, by NOT engaging in real discussion, and instead relying on Washington DC "think tanks" to come up with "talking points" that then get promulgated by the New York Slimes.

So typical of this, you don't address the substance of this article, you just repeat the "talking point." Chavez = crime. This is PSYOPS. It is NOT reasonable discussion. You have proven yourself, time and again, to be a repeater of such "talking points," and when you are challenged, you go off the deep end and say things like Chavez is Adolph Hitler. I repeat, this is the problem with the corpo-fascist 'news'-enabled rightwing here, and it is the problem with the corpo-fascist 'news'-enabled rightwing in Venezuela. You don't have to think, and when you are challenged, you go ape-shit crazy. How can a society solve its problems, here or there, with political groups relying on these McCarthyite--i.e., political terrorist--tactics and the press promoting them--and, indeed, becoming lying slimebag creators of them?

I see Chavez as a neo-fascist who hurts the cause of socialism. I see Eva Golinger as a propaganda tool for a regime which is destroying Venezuela's future.

And the truth is there is a huge crime wave in Venezuela, and the government supporters and propagandists are scared, because Herr Fuhrer is losing popularity, and elections will take place soon. The excuses are stupid, because the government of Chavez has been in power for 11 years, enjoying absolute control in recent years over the presidency, the courts, the congress and the military forces. Thus the reason why there is a crime wave, why the economy is decaying, and why there is huge corruption, is Chavez, and his red dressed courtiers and enforcers of a cult of personality similar to what is seen in North Korea.

Verbose apologies for a failing regime are just that, mere words, disconnected. Now try to explain in a logical way why there is a huge crime wave impacting the poor in Venezuela, when the government is supposedly worried about the poor.

Venezuela is BETTER OFF with Chavez.
They have moved forward.
Venezuela belongs to the Venezuelans.
THEY get to decide for themselves.
It is none of our business.
As a "democracy", we should be helping them all we can, and protecting them from the Right Wing troublemakers in Colombia.

VIVA Democracy!

if the elections are clean.

I don't believe they have moved forward. Their economy is in terrible shape, inflation rages and erodes the earning capacity of the working class, crime is increasing at enormous rates, and the government behaves as a neo-fascist clone with many troubling facets, such as the personality worship of a leader, the stated intent to remain in power even if violence is necessary, and other fascist traits.

I am not America, but I do believe we, as human beings, should be interested in the evolution of socialism in backwards areas such as Latin America, where political maturity is a rare thing. Thus we should defend the emerging socialist power, Brazil, and shine the light of truth on the autocratic and corrupt regimes such as the ones in Venezuela and Cuba.

"I am not America, but I do believe we, as human beings, should be interested in the evolution of socialism in backwards areas such as Latin America, where political maturity is a rare thing."

-----

Who are you, really? Juan Carlos? Or do we need to go back further than that, to the "Conquistadors," to find that brutal, racist view stated so nakedly?

I just read an historical account of the commission set up in Spain to decide whether or not the "indians" in their newly "discovered" gold mine were "human beings." Your statement seems right out of that era.

And you once again inadvertently reveal how much we can trust anything you say--as you did with your statement comparing Chavez to Adolph Hitler (you and Donald Rumsfeld)--that is, we cannot trust ANYTHING you say.

"...in backwards areas such as Latin America...". That says it all.

They are monitored by International Agencies, Jimmy Carter for one.
Which means that the elections in Venezuela are much more honest than the ones in the USA.
Elections in the USA are NOT transparent or verifiable.
There is no international monitoring agency allowed in the USA.

Is it possible that while Venezuela is better of under Chavez, that the great gains made were made earlier and that now things are off track?

Venezuela belongs to the Venezuelans.

I agree

THEY get to decide for themselves.

I agree. Is there someone who is advocating that non-venezuelans vote in their elections?


It is none of our business.

agreed.

As a "democracy", we should be helping them all we can, and protecting them from the Right Wing troublemakers in Colombia.

So wait, it is our business?


VIVA Democracy!

Just curious, do you consider Cuba to be a democracy?

You asked:
"Is it possible that while Venezuela is better of under Chavez, that the great gains made were made earlier and that now things are off track?that the great gains made were made earlier and that now things are off track?"

My answer:
No, that is not possible.
NO gains or reforms had been made under the old Oligarchy.
Venezuela has suffered from Corporate Imperialism, export of profits, and absentee foreign landlords for several generations (centuries actually).

cartoon. I'm a Venezuelan, I was born in the working class, always studied and then taught in public institutions for people of every social background and can appreciate how indecently you're cartooning the country I live in.

PS: remember you came to visit our country because you were actually working for Corporate Imperialism at the precise time it teared everything apart before you start talking about leftist ideals.

It is an absolutely beautiful country, rich in natural resources, populated by stunningly beautiful, intelligent, kind people.
It has suffered from two centuries exploitation from foreign countries like the USA who mined Venezuela's Natural Resources and exported the profits.
In order to continue this exploitation, the foreign predators installed and perpetuated a system of government that made a handful of people very wealthy, but kept the majority of the locals and indigenous peoples in absolute poverty.

Yes.
I first went to Venezuela as an employee of one of the foreign predatory corporations.
However, you fail to give me credit for having an epiphany when I experienced the extreme injustices of the system before Chavez.
Venezuela was being LOOTED,
and profits EXPORTED,
for the benefit of a very small Wealthy Class.

Chavez HAS redirected the proceeds from Venezuela's Resources to help the People of Venezuela.
This HAS benefited MILLIONS of Venezuelans.
I realize that the extreme minority who were Sharing the Loot under the old system are very ANGRY.
Tough Shit.

If the People of Venezuela decide they no longer want Chavez, they they can vote him out.
But short of an externally imposed Shock & Awe, Venezuela will NOT be returning to the old system you seem to long for:
Wealth, Power, & Privilege for the Few.

The Democratic Populist Reforms sweeping across South America give me HOPE for the World.
I pray they migrate to El Norte.

But you have nothing to back your claims...

Show me some historical series (precise stats, not someone citing stats, let's see things the at their source)
about the evolution of the illiteracy rate,
the life expectancy,
the social housing,
the poverty,
the appropriation of oil profits.

... and then we can talk.

You talk about appropriation of profits, right? You must be talking of oil profits, otherwise your sentence wouldn't mean a thing.
Do you know foreign multinationals today have a way bigger part (absolute part) of the oil profits than 12 years ago?
They used to have 90% of 150,000 barrels per day and now they get 40% of 1,000,000.

Half of my life I fought against the old system... and I'm still fighting against it.
I can tell you that it's not like we have no other choice besides Chavez and the party mafias (there's no oligarchy in Venezuela, there are political networks which get favors and absorb wealth when their mafia is in power, chavista intelligentsia acts the same way).

We're not in such a binary situation but if that was the case, I'd be depressed and chavista.

Venezuela used to keep only 10% of their oil profits.
Today, they keep 60% of the oil profits
.
.
.
.
This is a BAD thing? :shrug:

don't think so.

If he displeases the majority of Venezuelans, they wouldn't have re-elected him, or they, the actual VOTERS, would have utilized that referendum feature in their Constitution at any time midway through his other term to vote him right out, quick as the wind.

That's the constitution they wrote after he was elected, with his full acceptance and respect. If they get sick of him, the MAJORITY of Venezuelans, he's outtathere.

Since they don't want to kick him out, it's still up to the US funded oligarchs, their private control of their "news" media to lie, cheat, backstab, until they can effect the kind of poisonous influence they desperately want to claim over their betters in the Venezuelan population, the ones they call the "lumpen."

http://colombia.indymedia.org.nyud.net:8090/uploads/2008/05/premio.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com.nyud.net:8090/imageserve/0aybfAtco5aGj/610x.jpg

Idiot showing a picture of a fucking idiot.
Mise en abime?

Funny!

We used to produce by ourselves 2,850,000 barrels per day, state company having 100% of the capital. Associations with multinationals used to produce 150,000 additional barrels, with 90% of the capital being put by the foreign companies. 12 years ago.

We now produce 2,000,000 barrels by ourselves, again having 100% of the capital. Joint ventures with multinationals amount now for 1,000,000, with 40% of the capital being foreign.

The production is the same: 3,000,000

90% of 150,000 barrels' profit per day used to go out of the economy as profits for foreign multinationals (135,000.x). 12 years ago.
40% of 1,000,000 barrels' profit per day flies out today as foreign profits (400,000.x). 2010.

Conclusion?

Logically, you are saying that it is not possible that Chavez might ever to less good of a job than he has done previously, is that correct?

You can't even see how your extremism--your rightwing hysteria--invalidates everything you have to say. I can't credit ANYTHING you have to say, because that statement is so utterly off the wall--that Chavez is Hitler, is shoving 6 million people into ovens, is invading Poland, Czechoslovakia, France and Russia, engulfing the world in war, with millions dead. This assertion is simply nuts. Chavez HASN'T HARMED ANYBODY, and his GENUINELY ELECTED government has in truth done much good.

This is a very sick view, to perceive Chavez's popularity and political power as NAZISM and Chavez as "Hitler." There is nothing wrong with Chavez or his government or Chavistas. They are all NORMAL political phenomenon. What is wrong with Venezuela is YOU and your ilk, who can't win elections without USAID funding and the New York Slimes shilling for you, and even then, you lose, because you have no political solutions, nothing positive to propose and no political program other than regaining power for the rich elite, to undo Chavez's program--the way the rightwing/corpo-fascists here are dismantling the 'New Deal,' to rip everybody off, again.

You come here to DU to push your rightwing "talking points" for reasons we can only guess at. But the content of your posts tells us at least this--you are not interested in REASONABLE discussion.

Fascism doesn't necessarily require invading Poland or putting people in ovens. Chavez does show a remarkable likeness to fascist leaders. I have mentioned his autocratic traits, the way he insults other nations' leaders on television all the time, his gangster-like language full of foul language, his threats against small neighbours such as Aruba, the way he is creating a national socialism (national socialism is shortened as nazi by the Germans), militarizing society, giving generals important roles, demanding personal oaths of loyalty, creating a bizarre cult of Bolivar, including the exhumation of the man's corpse, and other bizarre practices. We can couple this with a tendency to ignore the law, form alliances with corporations (he has openly stated those corporations which behave as he says will be profitable, and those with owners supporting the opposition will be nationalized), and the way he ignores the plight of the poor, allowing an enormous crime wave to surge during his presidency, and the huge inflation rate, which mostly hurts the working class, all. of these factors tell me this man is a nazi. Calling him Herr Hitler is a good symbol for what he is, a corrupt, arrogant, nazi-like destroyer of society.

You, here...

(comment no. 1) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x40695

Rumsfeld, here...

Rumsfeld likens Venezuela’s Chavez to Hitler
Defense chief expresses concern at ‘populist leadership’ in Latin America
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11159503/

Who are we to believe? You and Donald Rumsfeld, or the voters of Venezuela, who have elected and re-elected Chavez by big margins, and even voted to let him run for a third term, if he wants to--in fair, transparent, internationally monitored elections?

Who are we to believe? You and Donald Rumsfeld, or Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, who said, of Chavez: "They can invent all kinds of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!"

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/11/chavez-power-another-venezuela

Who are we to believe? You and Donald Rumsfeld, or Nestor Kirchner, president of UNASUR and former president of Argentina, who, when the Bush Junta sent down its dictate to Latin American leaders, that they must "isolate Chavez," replied, "But he is my brother!"

Who are we to believe? You and Donald Rumsfeld, or the leaders of Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua, and others, in addition to the leaders of Brazil and Argentina, all of whom are close friends and allies of Chavez? Are you saying that all of these leaders don't recognize a "dictator" when they see one--some of whom have personally suffered under dictatorships? Are you saying that all of these leaders don't recognize a "fascist" when they see one--some of whom have personally suffered under fascism, and all of whom understand very well what fascism is? They are FRIENDS AND ALLIES of Chavez. Why should anyone trust Donald Rumsfeld's word and yours against theirs?

You are living in an UNREAL world of rightwing "talking points." Unreality is dangerous--for the person living in it, and for others, should the advocates of unreality gain power. It is also corrosive and poisonous. It makes reasonable discussion, and good government, difficult and even impossible. For instance, how does comparing Hugo Chavez to Adolph Hitler help solve the "street crime" problem in Venezuela--presuming that you really do want to solve the "street crime" problem and are not just mouthing off? The Chavez government is going to be in power for two more years, no matter what happens with National Assembly elections. If you really want to help solve the "street crime" problem, you will support the Chavez government's national police academy initiative. But how can you support ANY initiative of someone whom you have compared to "Adolph Hitler"? It seems to me that, by your epithet, you are encouraging crime and disorder--if not assassination of the elected president. You are encouraging disrespect for law and order, and encouraging extremist views and actions. You are inducing chaos. You are not assisting good government. You are not proposing some alternative initiative. You are wildly tearing at the very fabric of government by egregious and undeserved disrespect for the fairly elected leader of the country. Chavez has not harmed anybody. Can't you get that through your head? But, no, you live in a completely unreal world in which Chavez--who has harmed no one--is somehow like Adolph Hitler, who grievously harmed millions and is one of the most reviled and hated monsters in history.

Upside down, inside out, backwards--like the mirror world that Alice descends into. Donald Rumsfeld's world.


Nothing that you assert can be trusted, and, indeed, as with Rumsfeld, the safest rule of thumb is that, whatever you say, the opposite is the truth.

The problem that I and other well-informed, reasonable, progressive DUers have with you is the same problem that all reasonable people had with Rumsfeld--that, basically, everything he said was a lie, and that it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion in the face of such a psychosis. Psychosis = severe lack of reality. It is an extremely grave problem, of course, when a person like Rumsfeld, who does not operate on the basis of reality, but rather enmeshed within a vast network of lies, gains great power. That is how the U.S. ended up slaughtering a hundred thousand innocent people in the bombing of Baghdad alone, torturing thousands of prisoners, and looting and destroying a country's entire society.

Very unfortunately, your similar lack of reality closely resembles the lack of reality in Venezuela's right wing, which, like here, gives the people of Venezuela no choices: They have a choice between congenital lying, greed, coup d'etats, politics by death squad and extreme poverty, on the one hand, and the Chavez government, on the other. I think that Chavez has been extraordinarily restrained, given this situation and has good reason to be concerned that a loss at the polls, for him, would mean a loss of Venezuelan democracy altogether. Did the right, when it gained power by coup d'etat, not suspend the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights? What were they going to do NEXT, hm, if they hadn't been peacefully defeated by the people of Venezuela? We know what they would have done next. They would have started killing leftists and throwing their bodies into mass graves. They would have turned Venezuela into Colombia.

We have a similar problem here--that the Bushwhacks who have seized the Republican Party are nothing but monstrous thieves and mass murderers, in service to multinational corporations and war profiteers. But we have no Chavez--i.e., no FDR--to do battle with these forces, and to pull the center of the country's political spectrum back in line with the interests of the MAJORITY, that is, the left is the middle. We do NOT have honest, transparent elections. We have lost control of the very counting of our votes, on top of the filthy corruption of campaign money, the propagandistic corpo-fascist press and the general cauldron of "military-industrial complex" corruption in Washington DC. We don't have a remedy. Venezuelans--by their vigilance over the their election system--do, and they have exercised it by electing and re-electing the Chavez government. They have no other alternative. The rightwing are fascists and coupsters, many of them in the pay of the USAID and the CIA. And your views are closely aligned with theirs--with the extremist views of Venezuela's rightwing, which has no positive program for Venezuela and thus relies on fearmongering and outlandish allegations, hoping that somehow the CIA or the U.S. military will catapult it back into power, which--who knows?--it might still do. Same with the rightwing here. They are hoping--or perhaps they aren't just hoping but know--that Diebold/ES&S will do their work for them. They don't have to think. They don't have to make reasonable proposals. They can rant and rave all they wish and maybe end up with Sarah Palin as president, or John "death squad" Bolton, or Jim DeMint (Diebold-SC) or any number of Bushwhacks.

And won't that be lovely--a Bushwhack in the White House, giving orders to the U.S. military installations which have been laid out in an arc around Venezuela's Caribbean oil coast and northern oil provinces? Then you can have your wish--the end of Chavez--no matter what the majority in Venezuela wants.

Well Done, Sir!
Nailed It!
:patriot:

"I think that Chavez has been extraordinarily restrained, given this situation and has good reason to be concerned that a loss at the polls, for him, would mean a loss of Venezuelan democracy altogether."

Wow. Just wow.

the courts and all civil rights, with their "Carmona decree"?

How can any such opposition be trusted? There is GOOD REASON to be concerned. Action on that concern is a different matter. If, for instance, Chavez were to, say, suspend elections, say, on the basis of "national security," but, in reality, for political reasons (--that he thought the rightwing was going to win a majority of the National Assembly in transparent elections, or, in 2012, if he runs, that he was going to lose), then I would agree that, despite my own concerns about the fascist proclivities of the rightwing in Venezuela, Chavez would have, at long last, done something dictatorial. As long as elections are fair and transparent, they should proceed.

But, you see, Chavez is never going to do that. He is a committed democrat with a small d, and put his own life on the line for Venezuelan democracy. When the coupsters threatened his life, trying to pressure him to resign, he refused.

Contrary to rightwing propaganda, he has done NOTHING in Venezuela that he was not authorized to do by the Venezuelan Constitution or the National Assembly. He has scrupulously adhered to the Constitution. His government has wiped out illiteracy in part so that everybody can read the Constitution, and know their rights and know everybody's duties and responsibilities. They print the Constitution on grocery store bags! What 'tyrant' would do that? What 'tyrant' would greatly increase voter turnout and public participation? What 'tyrant' would propose a Constitutional amendment giving equal rights to women and gays? What 'tyrant' would put Constitutional amendments to a vote of the people? What 'tyrant' would increase public access to broadcast media? What 'tyrant' would grant community councils control of federal funds in their communities?

The core craziness of the rightwing/corpo-fascist propaganda about Chavez is that they mistake leftwing political strength--powerful action, powerful initiatives, in the interest of the majority--as tyranny. Chavez is a very similar political figure to FDR, who was also called a "dictator" by rightwing interests who could not tolerate a leader who wouldn't cater to the rich elite and "organized money" (as FDR put it).

For more than ten years, the rightwing/corpo-fascist propaganda machine has been saying that Chavez is a "dictator." When their latest "evidence" dissolves into nothingness, then they say that 'some day Chavez is going to become a dictator--just you wait!' It's time for this utter bullshit to be exposed for what it is: PROPAGANDA. It isn't true and it is never going to happen. Chavez is NOT a "dictator." He's been in power BY ELECTION for more than ten years and every one of his government's democracy initiatives--honest, transparent elections, international monitoring of elections, encouragement of voter turnout, encouragement of public participation, focus on education, public access to the broadcast media, and more, are still going forward. These are NOT the actions of a "dictator," as numerous other Latin American leaders can plainly see, and as the people of Venezuela, who are not rightwing crazies or in the pay of the CIA, can plainly see.

And, yes, the rightwing opposition in Venezuela remains a very serious concern. it is THEY who have plainly demonstrated that they respect neither the Constitution nor democracy!

to be able to state with certainty that they are all unfit to participate in the democratic process? Are there people of good conscience who disagree with Chavez' appointments and policies? Are all of the candidates who have been disqualified (by Chavez) guilty of something other than opposing the socialist movement there? Does being a good Venezuelan require that one support Hugo?

Why have so many candidates been banned from running for office? Have they been found guilty of a crime, or have they just been accused of corruption? Does it merely take an accusation from Hugo to disqualify a candidate, or is there a higher standard of proof? How is corruption defined there? Is opposing socialism a form of corruption?

it is inaccurate to say that crime has gone up dramatically under Chavez?

There are many factors that would have to be considered.
It is CERTAIN that the systems for reporting and measuring crime has gotten better.
When I was there in the early 90s, there was no police protection in the barrios and slums ringing Caracas....hence, no crime.
I haven't been back since Chavez, but I have heard that is changing, and I tend to believe it.


There was plenty of crime before Chavez.
Imported Contractors (me at that time) were forbidden to leave the gated compound without body guards and armed chauffeurs for fear of kidnapping or gang muggings on the major avenues of Caracas.
I snuck out anyway because I could pass if I kept my mouth shut, and had some non-Rich Class friends that I had met on the job who protected me, and showed me the REAL Caracas. I was fired over this breach of security, but NEVER regretted it.

...all the way

If it's the government and the military slaughtering thousands of trade unionists, community activists, teachers, human rights workers, political leftists, journalists, peasant farmers and others, and displacing five MILLION peasant farmers from their land, with state terror, in the interests of Exxon Mobil, Occidental Petroleum, Monsanto, Chiquita & brethren, big rich landowners and big rich drug lords, that's a "model democracy." Egregious crimes--mass graves piling up, one upon another, massive land theft, with 10% of the population stripped of its land and its ability to feed itself, huge inequality, epic disorder, committed by the government, the military and the very rich, IS NOT DEFINED AS CRIME. It is defined as "law and order."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x40881
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9066654

But if a country is run by a leftist government, chosen by big majorities of the people in honest, transparent, internationally monitored elections, and if that government cuts poverty in half and extreme poverty by 70%, vastly improves educational opportunities, voter turnouts and public participation, and punches Exxon Mobil in the nose and drives it and the corrupt, failed, murderous U.S. "war on drugs" out of the country, and there are still social problems in the country--say, "street crime"--robbery, common murder, too many guns--what people should do, in that case, is put rightwing thieves and murderous thugs in charge of the government, as in Colombia. And that will solve the "crime problem" which, of course, the rich and the multinational don't give a fuck about if THEY ARE COMMITTING THE CRIMES.

We've seen this "talking point" before. "Law and order." Nixon used it. Reagan used. Bush Sr and Jr used it. Alvaro Uribe used it. It is the standard preliminary to official crime, official robbery, official murder, on scales that cannot even be imagined by ordinary criminals. It is also a prescription for nazification of the country--for gargantuan robbing of the public treasury for the military, the police and the "prison-industrial complex" and for locking up the poor and throwing away the key, for PETTY crimes, while the rich commit massive, unconscionable crimes with impunity!

Know this PHONY rightwing "talking point"--concocted by the USAID and promulgated by the New York Slimes and others--for what it is: Bullshit. It is NOT intended to solve a "street crime" problem in Venezuela. It is intended to put REALLY BIG CRIMINALS in power in Venezuela, so that the rich can be made immune from the law and from common decency, as they are in Colombia.

So because crime is bad in Colombia, that means it is not way up in Venezuela?

The point is that Caracas is a horribly crime-ridden city, and has gotten worse under Chavez.

For all the endless and endless sentences your write, I notice that not a single one of them says "that is not true".

Putting the rightwing back in charge?

:rofl:

The people who suspended the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights, are going to establish "law and order"? Wow, let's solve a "street crime" problem by making way for some REAL BIG TIME CRIME AT THE TOP!

We heard this crap about "law and order" from Nixon. And who turned out to be the slaughterer of a million people in Southeast Asia, and a Watergate criminal as well? We got this crap from Bush Jr in Texas who gleefully executed almost two hundred people. And who turned out to be the slaughterer of a hundred thousand people in Iraq, and the torturer of thousands, and the massive looter of our public treasury, and the dismantler of our Constitution?

I go wa-a-ay back. I've heard this crap time and again. The rightwing DOES NOT SOLVE CRIME--they elevate it to a higher level. And when they start yammering about "law and order," they're getting really serious about committing major crimes--war crimes, repression, massive theft.

The question is NOT, has there been an increase in "street crime"? If there has been, then there has been. If there hasn't been, and it's just yet more garbage from the right, then there hasn't been--and it would be no surprise to me at all if that was the case. The question is, do Venezuelan voters want the rightwing to get a majority in the National Assembly, or do they want to continue a pro-Chavez majority? And what will be the consequences on public policy in either case?

In my opinion, one problem--if there is a problem--is not a sufficient basis on which to make that decision. The rightwing tried to make the hydroelelectric power shortage an issue. The Chavez government solved that, and shut them up. So now they're on "street crime" and inflation. Only Venezuelans can decide if these are sufficient reasons to saddle Chavez with a rightwing-dominated National Assembly. I expect them to side with Chavez, because there is so much more at stake--the entire "New Deal" that they voted for--and because they probably know that, if they saddle Chavez with a rightwing-dominated National Assembly, NOTHING will get done. The rightwing will make sure of that--they will out-Gingrich Newt Gingrich. I do expect the rightwing to gain some seats, because they BOYCOTTED the last National Assembly elections. I don't expect them to gain a majority or even sufficient seats to be a serious obstruction to Chavez initiatives. But we'll see what the Venezuelan voters decide. I just don't think that trying to wade through rightwing and New York Slimes bullshit on the issue of "street crime" is worth the effort. "Street crime" is a problem in MANY Latin American cities. And the rightwing in Venezuela and the New York Slimes, et al, have lied and distorted and propagandized so much that it would be foolish to believe anything they say, or to grant untoward importance to an issue that they and the USAID/CIA have decided to push.

and not giving assault rifles made for war to the radical militias.

Perhaps the biggest rift between you and I is that you seem to believe that the only alternative is a 70's style autocrat. If those were the two choices, I would be with you. I don't believe that they are the only two choice.

So when you ask if my solution is putting the right wing back in charge, my answer is no.

A constant, a leitmotiv in our governmental TVs, radios and newspapers.

Very well described by Hannah Arendt. The constant internal enemy threat.

"You have no other acceptable choice for the Nation than me, the Great Leader. Those who are not with me are traitors to our people, planning to take over for foreign interests"

The facts are the facts. Venezuela has a terrible economy, the government is corrupt, it is autocratic, there is a terrible crime wave which makes the lives of the poor very miserable. These are facts. And these are the reasons why the government isn't popular anymore. In the past, they were popular, now, the people want them out. This is the way the polls are showing. And they should be kicked out, because they are terrible.

whatever she decides are the facts, are the facts, and nothing else is real. Thus, she insisted that her minions PAINT the white roses red, because red was HER color, and she is THE QUEEN, and all of nature should be forced to pay allegiance to HER REDNESS.

Venezuela does not have "a terrible economy." It has a rather good one, considering what the Bush junta did to the U.S. and world economies. The government is not "corrupt," compared to most governments. Criminy, look at the U.S. government, larding multi-billions of dollars on banksters, war profiteers and private 'contractors' of every kind. The U.S. "military-industrial complex" and the "prison-industrial complex" are absolutely filthy with corruption on an unprecedented scale. Whatever thieves may have attached themselves to the Chavez government are "small potatoes" compared to what goes on in Washington DC. And "street crime" in Venezuela is not new and it is not unique to Venezuela. It is a problem in many Latin American cities.

The Chavez government has been in power for more than ten years BY THE CHOICE OF THE VENEZUELAN PEOPLE. It would be surprising if that government continued to be as wildly popular as it has been in the past, because no government can solve every problem in a society, and it will, as a matter of course, start being blamed for those problems that it cannot solve, or for its particular failures. As with your comparison of Chavez to Adolph Hitler, you tend to extreme exaggeration and totally off-the-wall statements, with no basis in reality. So I simply cannot trust anything you say.

for years, and there are some very intelligent, honorable ones here who have intimate, first hand knowledge on the subject.

We all make up our OWN minds based on our OWN character, and our own research, which is important to us.

I think rightists fear the left, as they are drawn like moths to try to butt into conversations among the leftist posters. Most leftists wouldn't dream of participating in a rightist board as there's nothing there worth discussing. We all know they're wildly incomplete, twisted, and who cares, in the end? They have every chance we do to seek what's right, do what's right, and they resist.

They are social criminals! Rude to a criminal level, and unable to stop making themselves objects of fun.