« Gerry Rafferty has passed | Main

Let's play a little game...

fang-den-hut.jpg

It's called "Who haz Teh Stoopid about Venezuela?"

Our first contestant: The Miami New Times. In spite of their posing as a liberal alternative paper, they follow all the conventional media lines--and lies--about certain places and presidents. Take, for example, their "Riptide 2.0" report on the bad soap opera of Carlos Andrés Pérez, which came out today, even though I've been blogging on this since...oh, LAST YEAR:

Perez, who died of a heart attack at age 88 back on Dec. 25, was first scheduled to be buried in Miami after a mass at St. Thomas the Apostle last Wednesday. But his wife back in Venezuela, Blanca Perez, whom he never divorced, filed a court motion to halt the burial.

Hours later, Matos and his Miami daughters issued a statement seemingly ending the feud, telling El Nuevo Herald they were "not going to challenge" his wife's move to bury him in Venezuela.

But they've apparently had a change of heart. Riptide left messages at Cecilia Matos' home in Brickell Key and with her lawyer, Juan Antunez, but we haven't heard back yet.

The AP reports that Matos' family denies they ever reached an agreement to send him home, telling the service that "this is in the hands of our lawyers now."

Perez's embalmed body, meanwhile, is resting in a Miami funeral home until the families -- or the courts -- sort out the mess.

We know what you're really wondering. What does Hugo Chavez -- who ousted Perez from power in 1992 -- think should happen?

Um, Chávez didn't "oust Pérez from power in 1992". He led a failed military uprising and went to jail for it. It was the Supreme Court of Venezuela that REMOVED Pérez the following year--for massive embezzlement of public funds, in case you're wondering. As for Chávez, he wasn't in the picture again until 1994, when he was pardoned by then-president Rafael Caldera.

You may also be wondering who's responsible for that piece of belated CAP stoopid. That was one Tim Elfrink. He also calls Venezuela a "Bolivarian paradise", no doubt with more snark injected into his tone than there is margarine in a Butterball turkey. Tim, thanks for playing. Go stand in the corner. And pick up that dunce cap you see there; it's for you.

Now, for our next contestant. Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times characterizes Chavecito as "obstreperous". Andrew, Andrew, Andrew...you say that like it's a BAD thing. All it really means is that the man has substantially more backbone than, oh, say, a well-trodden doormat. Nice of you, too, not to note, not even in the name of fairness, that the US ambassador in question, Larry Palmer, has made overt statements before your congress demonstrating his willingness to interfere in Venezuelan politics, which his posting as a diplomat expressly forbids him from doing. And that the Venezuelan ambassador, Bernardo Alvarez, who had spent seven years in the States without a misstep, was "booted" strictly in retaliation for Venezuela's rejection of the meddlesome (and appallingly ignorant) Mr. Palmer. No, instead, you just dug up that old hambone about how "badly" Chavecito behaved at the UN a few years ago, when he dared to diss Little Georgie Bushie. (That speech got some appreciative laughs, BTW. It was intended to.) Andrew, go join your Miamero buddy Tim there in the corner, and pick up that second dunce cap. It's all yours, bud.

Our third contestant is FUX Snooze. Using the utterly discredited Andrew Breitbart as your source? That is not only lazy journalism, that's flat-out crapaganda. Do you even want to bother with the report? I don't. The quality of the comments tells me all I need to know about the informativity of the piece. Anonymous FUX Snoozer, go to the corner and pick up your dunce cap. It's marked #3. (You can read numbers, right?)

And finally, the Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina. The what? of where?--you say? Yeah, exactly. I don't know them from a pile of shit either. Which makes their reporting...what? Simple logic, my friends...use it and infer. They've devoted a charming piece of fact-free unsigned editorial cowardice to calling two elected leaders "dictators". This is the same crapaganda I can read every day, anywhere else. It's easy. TOO easy. Any of you pros ever hear of a thing called JOURNALISM? Here's a newsflash: YOUR DIPLOMATS LIE. That's all that Cablegate has revealed so far about Venezuela. Do some serious digging and you might figure that out. And while you're at it, you might learn the real reasons behind Chavecito's decree rule; you might be unpleasantly surprised to learn that it actually has to do with catastrophic flooding in the region, not "the lame-duck congress", which is a strictly US concept and thus inapplicable in Venezuela. The day you send an actual person down there to observe the actual situation and write something other than this boilerplate bullshit, you be sure and alert Google. Until then, you just go pick up dunce cap #4 and sit in the corner with the others.

So, gentle readers: Who do you think should win the Golden Duncecap? Drop a comment in the slot below and let me know who you'd pick, and why.

Comments

"...It was the Supreme Court of Venezuela that REMOVED Pérez the following year--for massive embezzlement of public funds, in case you're wondering...."

There you go again, boringly injecting facts and ruining a good smear campaign.

Sabina

I knew you would put all the subjects in their proper context.

You did call it correct in reference about the catfight over CAP to begin,maybe a burial at sea is called for...

What passes for the media in the US is a cesspool, so I have to call it a tie bettween all three.

Sorry its betweenn all four.

This is is so perfunctory in US corporate media and among the intelligensia that it is old hat.

That the so-called " progressive" rags pimp this shit is not surprising at all.

I had to school some progressive-left personalities in community radio to the fact that Chavez is not a dictator.

Some people are so inclined to regurgitate the memes advanced by the corporate state.

Too bad they don't teach Chomsky 101 in high school. But then it would be "school" if it helped people to think critically as habit.

I suppose that the fabrication of history is the worst crime of all. stupid or bigoted opinions can be brushed aside in light of real facts, but misinformation brings about unnecessary conclusions and insults the readers' intellect and trust. so I think the first contestant should win...possibly...

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)