open Democracy News Analysis - the americas - Comments

Heriberto Vizcarra on "Mexico: living with drugs"

Heriberto Vizcarra — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:17:02 +0100

"Mexico has a 3,000-kilometre border with a power avid for narcotics".
Actually, it is the US side of that border the one with power avid for narcotics, or at least has been so.
Narcotics consumption has, recently, raised in Mexico, according to reports from authorities and non-profit organizations due to the stronger control of the U.S. over its border. Nevertheless, it has been the american addiction and buying power that has fed the organized crime in Mexico.

Not logged in on "Barack Obama, Moroccan Ali, and me"

Not logged in — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:14:02 +0100

SUBTLE RACISM

I'd like to thank you for this beautiful article . Even though i don't agree with everything you said i am happy that outsiders are somewhat noticing what is going on in Europe . Cause let me tell you African- Immigrants in Europe have absolutely NO representation in European media. But to respond to the last part about subtle racism the answer to your wish is NO nothing is gonna be or has been mild as far as subtle racism goes. See you Black Americans have done very well for your selfs : you top the entertainment business, Black serious senators, Black TV-shows, Black Movies, Black newspapers, Black News reporters, Black athletes, Black Entrepreneurs and lets not forget a serious Black candidate for the White House. With all the subtle racism you Black Americans face you have POWER to respond and more importantly be HEARD. Now as for the African Europeans we don't have peep. Why ? well #1 language barriers French Africans Dutch Africans Belgium Africans don't speak the same language and so for its hard to unite or speak to a whole audience #2 numbers there are approximately 10 million Africans in Europe divided over four country's Spain, France, The Netherlands and Belgium #3 separation in Europe its hard to have very big minority communities living in the same part of a city so its hard for us to create our own Harlem if you will And since there is no unity under Africans there is also no real community so it quickly becomes a save your own ass situation so there are no rules given to African Celebrities on how to act when on television for example i watched a Moroccan celebrity say on a all white program in front of a all white audience 'We sand niggers cant do nothing right' although joking was the purpose you probably know what the consequences of such a joke can be especially when there are no alternative perspectives shown on prime time day time or any time TV. So living in Europe as an educated African the frustration is somewhat comparable to the pain of a knife in your back and a hand on your mouth not allowing you to scream and yell out the pain. I'm not trying to victimize my self but i wonder if you to get a certain headache on top of your eyes just under your eyelids when you think of Subtle Racism. Just a few months ago a Moroccan stabbed 2 police officers not killing them but lightly injuring them a police officer responded by killing him in self defense of course later it became known that the young 21 year old called Bilal was suffering from Schizophrenia. Not to insult your intelligence but to clarify that Schizophrenia is not a split personality but it is a mental condition in where the victim suffers from, confusion, Delusions, Hallucinations, hearing voices and sometimes became aggressive it is a fact that most patients who suffer from this mental illness are suicidal. Now a new investigation has shown that this illness is diagnose 3 times more under African Immigrants then under White Europeans. It is also a scientific FACT that this disease is caused by strong feelings of not fitting in with the masses or not having a clear vision of who you are and where you belong. Talk about Subtle Racism.

Much love and Keep up the good work,
( and even if you not respond its a relief just writing this )
An African brother,
Youssef

Cathy Fitzpatrick on "Democracy in America: paths to renewal"

Cathy Fitzpatrick — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:39:40 +0100

Re: "And at the national level, initiatives like the Red-Blue Project - coordinated by Internews Interactive and the Public Conversations Project
- offer citizens ways to engage with others on divisive issues via the
web. In this respect, America has much to learn from other parts of the
world where democracy is being deepened and extended in important ways,
especially in Brazil, India and South Africa (whose experience was part
of the inspiration for "Minnesota Works Together"). So as a final
recommendation, how about a new federal democracy commission to cull
these lessons for use back home?"

I find this statement utter incredible, Michael, and I wonder what on earth you are talking about. These projects are all good things, but no need to extrapolate from these projects -- American based -- some nonsense about Brazil, India, and South Africa "deepening their democracy" more than American (?!).

Yes, South Africa has *so* deepened its democracy, that its government could not see its way clear to support democrats in neighbouring Zimbabwe, and sent thousands of refugees back home. Yes, India has so deepened its democracy that it has made the Dalits equal? Well? Brazil has solved its racial discrimination and appalling prison problems? I mean, these are the sorts of things that "international citizens" such of yourselves point out about the U.S. but they are even more true of other countries precisely because those countries lack the remediese that this country has. I think that's one thing that British observers such as yourself often miss about the strenghts of the U.S. -- that it goes with these ills of many nations by having systems, litigation, non-profits, and even all these "web savvy "people you tout as a solution (Americans invented the tools).

We hardly need to have a "federal democracy commission," as some sort of bureaucratic overlay to an already complex system of government -- sounds like Putin's managed democracy and the "Public Chamber". Seriously, we have an elected Congress. We'll do our poor best. You may find many of them yahoos. But then you've failed to persuade those who elect them that your ideas are right.

Cathy Fitzpatrick

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/un_tethered

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/ngo_accountability

Cathy Fitzpatrick on "Democracy in America: paths to renewal"

Cathy Fitzpatrick — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:34:05 +0100

I don't share the concern that democracy is so "hollowed out," living in the same New York City; it's very lively. Same-day voting registration opens up problems of fraud and the time needed to check IDs, and opens up the issue of whether non-citizens should be voting, say, using drivers' license -- and these are all issues that need to be democratically debated, and not stressed to be the vehicle by which "more equitable results" are gained.

I'm also not as enthusiastic about the "web-savvy" crowd, that can just as easily engage in mob justice and massive trolling and incitement of hate against, say, those who aren't supporters or Obama or who are supporters of McCain. All the YouTube's and Twitters and Facebooks are filled with it. That sort of user-generated democracy doesn't seem likely to deliver quite the nice results Michael Edwards anticipates.

Of most concern, however, in this essay is an underlying premise that representative democracy is just no good, that it no longer serves the public, that some ideal, that ends all rigging of districts, corruption, special interests, etc. is possible. And that sort of utopianism is frankly dangerous, because it's untethered from the reality of politics in a free, democratic society.

Re: "However, one thing is clear: conventional, first past the post,
zero-sum, winner-take-all politics are very poor at tackling this basic
question, and they get worse as systems of representation become eroded
or fossilised. The only solution is to combine different forms of democracy
in new and liberating ways - representative, deliberative, and
participatory; identity-based, issue-based and cross-cutting; local,
national and global."

It's an exaggeration to say, in a government with a professional civil and foreign service corps that usually largely remains regardless of which party is in power, that "winner takes all".

Unfortunately, there may not be anything liberating at all in "combining" these different "forms". It's clear off the back that representative democracy is to be undermined and curbed and eroded, and that the wonders of "deliberate and participatory" democracy are to be added on in unknown quantities and proportions to make sure that whoever rules Twitter, i.e. The News Gang, can determine public consciousness.

Identity-based? That sounds like a recipe for inciting mobs and inciting hates. We already see a lot of that. Issue-based? Issues are what extremists hide out in, waiting in the wings for when they can spring their agendas full-blown, usually snaring unsuspecting sincere people. A typical example is the "Support Our Troops" fiction which was promulgated by people decidedly against the war, but unable to get enough momentum on the left, or in the middle, to start a credible anti-war movement. I'm all against the war, and winding it down as soon as possible, but let's be frank about it, and not pretend we care about "supporting our troops" no matter where they are or what they are doing, just to harvest public sentiment. That's insincere. It's a placebo, in the face of the reality that a real anti-war movement simply couldn't get started, possibly because the people doing a lot of the killing are terrorists and their supporters, not forces that people can identify with.

"These new combinations of politics can
accommodate diversity by diffusing power across many different spheres
and levels of democratic participation, influence and decision-making,
so encouraging people of different views to engage with each-other in
substantive ways. Like rocks in a stream, the sharp edges of our
differences might then be softened over time as they knock against each
other. How to do this while preserving the legitimate authority we need
to enforce decisions is the central challenge facing politics in the many years to come."

Diffusing power? Who will get to decide how it diffuses? A committee somewhere? No, differences don't need to be softened and homogenized by people manipulating media, especially new media. It's more than fine to retain sharp edges. They need to be managed and not removed; not validating these genuine feelings based on people's real experiences is a recipe for revolt. You aren't going to get "the Bitters" of Pennsylvania to drop their guns just because you got them a better job or a lower-priced guns, because that sort of economic determinism is what was wrong with your analysis in the first place.

I realize you want to use this essay to pump Obama, but people don't need presidents do to their community organizing. Presidents are needed for national and foreign affairs.

BTW, if you want to study something about redistricting, read the New Yorker piece about Obama by Ryan Lizza. It will show you how Obama got to where he did by clawing his way to the top and making all kinds of political alliances in a typical way all politicians do who seek power, it's not merely about "community organizing" which is only one facet of his biography.

Cathy Fitzpatrick

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/un_tethered

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/ngo_accountability

Not logged in on "Jungle dumb: Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto"

Not logged in — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:31:20 +0100

His name is Kanishk Tharoor--not Karoor, genius.

jayr on "Mexico: living with drugs"

jayr — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:30:30 +0100

It would be nice for Mexico to take a serious stance on drugs while they are trying there is still a lot of corruption in a country where few people are making enough to support their families drugs, are an easy alternative as well as coming to America illegally. Both of i am against. Not just Mexico's drugs but the other cocaine and heroin coming through from south America.
Narconon Vista Bay

stefanie on "Jungle dumb: Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto"

stefanie — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:38:52 +0000

i agree with krishnamc in that obsession with blood, power, money or anything really will ultimately result in an individual as well as society's demise. likewise, parting from what is natural is.. well.. un-natural and will lead to the same. the book collapse covers the topic well.

the movie is certainly open to interpretation and i fear for the most part misinterpretation. seems that the typical interpretations from the movie are amongst other things racist and delusional, due most likely to viewers western superiority and grandose complex and subconcious assumptions. i find the idea that the spanish at the end of the movie turned up to 'save' the mayans from themselves quite baffling.

i have no idea what mel was aiming for, but my interpretation painted an obvious picture. in a nutshell - the 'bad' city mayans had detahced themselves from the world around them and consequently destroyed it and themselves in the process. the spanish at the end were even more detached from the environment (so much so that they had no idea and thought they would be helping). to me, they threatened to be an even bigger and more formiddable enemy. not only would they conquer and destroy the land (same as the 'bad' mayans), but also would destroy the culture, and ofcourse do it with a smile and a feel good attitude.

not surprising, the main character and his family chose not to embrace the spanish arrivals but instead to retreat into the jungle by themselves. ofcourse in the real world, there is no escape.

on a side note, i don't do well with gore, but given the story, i felt it was appropriate and prefferable to hollywood fight scenes which fail to portray the cruelty and pain of such occurences in reality, thus downgrading it and failing to represent how bad violence is.

anyway that's my 2 cents for today. any comments?

luisefe64 on "The deepening of Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution: why most people don't get it"

luisefe64 — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:19:18 +0000

Dear Julia First at all, my apologies for my English Nobody can deny the advances of some social projects carryied out by Chavez goverment in the last years. However you seem to elude the fact that the concentration of power in a person is a serios thread to democracy. I agree that there is an oversimplification from the western media about the current situation of Venezuela but at the same time you have a very romantic and paternalistic perception about the “caudillos” that have had our region. Regards Luis Fernando Gómez

corvocaramella on "Pinochet’s regime: the verdict of history"

corvocaramella — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:29:24 +0100

where in god's name did you find sources that say Lenin's coup cost 60 million lives? Pinochet's coup cost even more lives than Lenin's coup, which was bloodless!!!! maybe you are referring to the entire number lives lost in the soviet union because not even Stalin's victims can surpass 40 million. regardlessly you can't justify Pinochet's acts just because another bygone irrelevant dictator killed more people. And lastly, within the western hemisphere, military regimes have far surpassed the brutality of communist regimes. go look up Rios Montt or Pinochet and compare them to Fidel Castro.

nightjuan on "The crisis of Colombia's state"

nightjuan — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:45:04 +0100

I think the article, when taken as a whole, does far more good than bad, but there are still several aspects which can and should be questioned. I don't agree with chapi66, by the way, but that doesn't mean I agree entirely with Mrs. Pearce and some of the other commentators either. One doesn't have to jump straight into the arms of either, if you ask me. It continues to include an all too easily repeated mistake, that Álvaro Uribe "created the Convivir". Has anyone here actually looked at the documents detailed how and when and by whom the Convivir groups were created? Apparently not, even though several are on the web. Word of mouth may suffice in some subjects, but here one thing is clear. Uribe supported and promoted the Convivir groups a lot in Antioquia, and that has its own consequences, but to present him as the sole person responsible for their creation shows a lack of research, to put it lightly. This doesn't mean that Uribe isn't politically, socially and ideologically close to conservative, reactionary forces and even to paramilitarism itself, but that still doesn't allow for such a caricaturization. The article also claims that the paramilitaries made their greatest offensives during the first Uribe administration, when a quick look at other dates in the article itself shows it to be otherwise (not to mention those of the largest massacres and other details that are easy to independently check): in essence, the paramilitaries had already consolidated their previous late 90's military gains by then (2002), and it was only afterwards that they began to consolidate their political ones (in that the article does make more than few good points). That much isn't exactly presenting a rosy picture either, but it's still important to get the timeline straight and not twist it around. Now, some comments on what others have opined: "a truthful description of the terror that people in colombia has endured for over half a century." From this and the rest of that post, it seems this guy has rather superficial view of the situation, if that's all he can say about the article. "Colombia was the only country in the region to support the invasion of Iraq and Uribe even hoped out loud that Bush would have some troops left over to send to Colombia." While the second bit rings somewhat anecdotically true, the first part isn't exactly accurate either. It's easy to check that Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Dominican Republic also supported the Iraq war through the so-called "Coalition of the willing", not just Colombia. I didn't support that invasion either, but it's important to get the facts straight. "This can't be truthful since the author interviewed only NGO members who gives a sight very partial. Anyone who reads this would think that paramilitars are for no reason, that there are no guerrillas and that any H.R. organization can be trustful, and that is not the truth." This isn't exactly true either. The article may not be perfect, but this is a very sloppy and incorrect way to describe it. Please re-read. "You are saying that in the 60's and 70's there was a gross social injustice leading people to support guerrillas but that is a lie." I don't see how that is a lie, even if it's not the whole story. "This article was written by a communist agent trying to gain disapproving for Uribe. Anyone with a hugue knowledge about Colombian reality would disapprove this article for tendencious and partialized against Uribe by repeating FARC's speach (a terrorist group)." I don't think this article is actually kind towards the FARC nor repeating its opinions, so this isn't warranted at all. "It mentions that the Colombian government is considered too weak to deal with terrorism. Part of that image may be because Colombia paid the American PR firm of Sawyer/Miller over $3 million to create that image." Nobody is paying me a cent to sit down and write this (on the contrary), but the Colombian state (not government) actually is a strange mix: some relatively strong institutions, some weak ones, and others that lie somewhere in between. There are limits to the state's activities which aren't exclusively self-imposed or merely due to the greediness of the elite. Noticing that doesn't require any PR. "Some believe it was on purpose to get money from the USA, who has now contributed over $4 Billion USD." This makes it sound like Colombia just pockets the money away, when in fact a lot of it isn't even provided in cash/credit but actually in terms of equipment and services for which U.S. citizens and companies receive payment. Half of the resources for 2006 actually were spent on contractors, for example, as recent headlines can prove. "While on the other hand many working class Colombians say they don't want the money because it continues the war on drugs because certain elements are getting rich from the American money." I think there are more than enough reasons to criticize both current U.S. aid to Colombia and drug prohibition as a whole without having to speculate (with no real evidence other than "common ignorance") that "certain elements are getting rich from the American money". "The middle class had no option: was to get involved with the paramilitaries by paying taxes to them, or run the risks of loosing their lands, be kidnapped or even being murdered. However, the monopoly of the force should be on the state. Whatever are the circumstances, if we Colombians really want to finish the conflict, we have to pay the cost of saying no to alternative ways of protection and embrace the rule-of-law." I agree with this general thought, but to place the blame for paramilitarism entirely on the middle class, ignoring the high class and other elements that don't fit either of them, isn't exactly better than what the other guy is doing. "I am an academic as well and I agree that in Colombia some NGOs can have a biased perspective of the situation in the country. However, the reality is that the average Colombian citizen degrades everything to do with NGOs and the unions partly due to the image that Uribe has portrayed in his emotional discourses. The truth is NGOs and unions are key components of a democratic civil society." Partly due to Uribe, yes, but criticism against NGOs and their sometimes (not always) partial perspectives predates him. He's just the most recent and vile exponent of intolerance for criticism, but that's not the origin of the problem. "I went to ALL the promotional discourses of the presidential candidates for the 2002 elections. Political parties did not bias me; I wanted to be an informed citizen. The result, I was quite scared of Uribe's proposals and his links with the paramilitaries. We all new about Uribe�s political founding from the very beginning. Colombia took the risk of getting a short sense of peace at any cost, and now we are paying the consequences. The Colombian state is at crisis." I actually think that this crisis has some positives that are being completely overlooked here: mainly, the possibility for a painful but necessary catharsis. This aspect of the situation apparently matters little to most of those commenting. As for Uribe's links to paramilitaries, they are still unclear at this point and could be endlessly debated, because most are circumstantial until a real smoking gun shows up (and no, the two or three recent headlines aren't yet smoking). I don't think he's an angel, far from it, but not the devilish ogre raised from the depths of hell that some people like to paint either. The fact is that his government has been lax in its treatment of the paramilitaries and much more evidently linked politicians, That much is clear and doesn't need much debate, does it? It's enough to oppose Uribe and wish for alternative solutions, which believe it or not is what I do. Even if, unfortunately, he continues to be more than popular right now. With that final statement, I leave....

chapi66 on "The deepening of Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution: why most people don't get it"

chapi66 — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:34:07 +0100

1. Chavez is communist. 2. He killed 300 Venezuelans in 1992 when he tried to kill democracy. 3. He is anti-democrat. He offends everyone contradicting him. He deniesTV licenses for channels opposing him. 4. Venezuela has empoverished since the 90's and Chavez has done nothing to fix it and overcome the crisis. 5. The few improvements that he has showed are due to oil prices rising since Bush invaded Irak, so Bush is the best thing that has happened to Chavez. 6. Corruption is now bigger than ever before. If former politicians were corrupt at least people could know how much they stole. Now there is no way to know it. If Chavez steals money there is no judge to process him. He holds all powers in Venezuela, like a dictator. 7. Although many Venezuelans support Chavez, it is due to his popular speach. He is giving them what they want: a demagogical governor, a dictator like in past times, as they like, giving them some money without working for it. Chavez represents Venezuelan most underdeveloped culture. 8. That is all I have to say about Chavez. Each one of the points above can be proved studying Venezuelan's history and visiting the country.

chapi66 on "The crisis of Colombia's state"

chapi66 — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:18:56 +0100

Griceldazipa: those "working class Colombiants" you mention are nothing but union traders allied with FARC, they are a smaller minority in Colombia and they don't represent mass working class there. Please check your sources because they need to lie about Colombia in order to help FARC. Opinión_1: please, don't lie anymore. THis was a very bad description of Colombia. You know it. You know that sources are partial against government. Of course, you are part ot the "accommodated middle-high class in Colombia from Bogotá". You are the typical leftist guy expecting that the State will solve your life with lifetime profits without working. Middle class has nothing to do with paramilitaries. Don't lie. Only enterpreneurs - high class people - had to pay them for protection against FARC. Other high class people are FARC allies. And some low class people in the country zones had to join FARC or paramilitaries as they were ordered to by recruiters specially when we had no Army at all and the country was half ruleless. Of course you are an "academic". Oh please, so so so typical. You are an "intelectual" Colombian, that kind of people supporting leftist ideologies so frequently linked to FARC. Of course you must love this article. It was made by people like you. Union traders are a key component for democracies ONLY WHEN THEY ARE NOT A MOB! CUT, USO, FECODE and other union trade organizations are gangsters. Everyone knows it is true for Colombia. Just send us clean union traders and we will have clean union traders finally here. If you saw ALL candidates proposals in 2002 and you were scared about Uribe, tne ONLY ONE demanding FARC to stop crimes, then you are a FARC ally since you don't demand to stop kidnappings, killings and bombings. Crisis was what we had until 2002. So please, don't lie anymore. You don't have to be trusted. I know Colombia. You can't fool me, ok?

quidoculosavertis on "The deepening of Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution: why most people don't get it"

quidoculosavertis — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:58:06 +0100

I for one, find it difficult to forget that the president, a former perennial Venezuelan army plotter and malcontent, went up in arms against the state in 1992 in a bloody coup d'�tat attempt, with the declared intent to murder the elected president, resulting in several hundred deaths including innocent bystanders and thereafter gave himself up when his life was guaranteed.

He became a household figure that day on national television after a brief speech appealing to his fellow conspirators to surrender.

Capping the string of failures that comprised his military career, this last desperate media exposition ironically converted a failed bloody coupster into a recognised personality of national stature and formed the foundation of his messianic political platform by successfully tapping into the grudge politics.

As a result, he spent about two years in with a clean jail cell, surrounded by books, friends and conjugal visits, a supreme privilege afforded to precious few in Venezuela's disastrous jail system.

Unapprehended co-conspirators gave Venezuela a repeat performance with the November 1992 coup d'�tat attempt, producing yet another round of suffering and death. To date these murders have remained uninvestigated and while Ch�vez remains in power it will continue to be so.

This callous, resentful man, with a long-stanging grudge against Venezuela can only act tyranically. Calling him a "ranting populist demagogue" is to treat him with kid gloves. More often than not, he acts like a bully. Authoritarianism is a euphemism to describe the way the Venezuelan government works. Others would liken it more to the way criminals gangs operate.

Time is running out on the romantic aspects of the Ch�vez r�gime that appeal to the notions of the na�ve and sooner than later the world will see him for what he really is.

Can we seriously expect him to act in a democratic manner? He himself has let it be clearly known that he answers to nobody and revels in rubbing this in the face of Venezuela. He has such disrespect for his 1999 constitution, presented to the world as the best possible constitution ever, that there are few articles that he or his minions have not despotically trampled upon.

Freedom of expression is being curtailed when Venezuela's most popular TV channel is closed downby the government on May 27th, the Supreme Court adding insult to injury by sentencing that RCTV's transmission infrastructure can be "borrowed" by other channels, as an act of chavista vengeance and a highly visible step towards your common or garden dictatorship.

The repercussions of having a large portion of politically unrepresented Venezuelans remain to be seen, especially when Ch�vez finally presents the constitutional reforms to allow him to remain in power legally for ever and whatever other laws written under his 18 month "enabling" umbrella.

Yes one can turn a blind eye, or buy the revolutionary rhetoric lock, stock and barrel, for reasons of solidarity or not, but the only thing Ch�vez's government has been successful in is the creation of even more misery. This situation is going nowhere but down for now.

quidoculosavertis on "The deepening of Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution: why most people don't get it"

quidoculosavertis — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:56:12 +0100

One cannot rightly claim to be fully cognizant with Venezuelan current events and at the same time ignore the amply-attended daily nationwide peaceful student protests of late, unless one only gets their news exclusively from the Venezuelan government and sympathetic media, presently enforcing a news blackout on the subject. The student protests are aimed directly against government interference in detriment of freedom of expression, of which the closure of RCTV is but the latest of many unfortunate instances.

If it were the case that a media outlet were involved in illegal activities, these would have been brought to trial ages ago. All manner of accusations flow freely from the mouthes of the president and his sycophants and despite the iron-fisted control that the judiciary is subjected to by Ch�vez, no such charges have ever been brought against RCTV.

ggunders on "The deepening of Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution: why most people don't get it"

ggunders — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 06:54:32 +0100

Those of us on this blog that are Venezuelan or know Venezuela know well that no one in Venezuela, with the exception of a few, is crying for RCTV. We all know what they did in April 2002.

Now, you can argue that President Chavez moved too slowly, that he did not take action to arrest the owners and managers of RCTV, Globovision, and Venevision back in April 2002. This was his BIG mistake. We all know that they are guilty. However, 5 years have passed and that is why the opposition can come out and say what it has to say. RCTV was not charged with a crime, let alone convicted. We all know that it should have been and I am sure that Marcel Granier probably is confused about why he was not put in jail.

So, no tears for RCTV but lots of tears for the Venezuelan government because they did not know what to do back in 2002. RCTV, Globovision, and Venesion should have been shut down then and all of the owners and managers should have been arrested and tried.

Mistakes are being made but the biggest mistake would be to think that we are going to go back to the days of AD and Copei. Won't happen. Sorry.