Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
Stephen Sackur provides a misleading and one-sided picture of Venezuela after a brief visit there, during which he interviewed President Hugo Chávez for The Guardian ("A chat with Chávez — Oliver Stone’s new lead tells all," 14 June). I am the co-writer of Oliver Stone’s forthcoming documentary on Chávez, South Of The Border, and was present throughout the interview.
Sackur says that Chávez "categorically denied claims frequently aired in the U.S. that Venezuela is supplying Iran with uranium." But Venezuela does not even produce uranium, as Chávez told him during the interview.
Sackur paints a distorted picture of economic failure under the Chávez government. "In the capital’s sprawling hillside barrios, jobs are scarce," he says. But jobs are much less scarce today than when Chávez took office, with unemployment at 8% in 2009 compared with 15% in 1999 – which Chávez also mentioned to him.
There are a number of statistics made available to Sackur that show enormous progress during the decade: poverty fell by more than 44%; the number of primary care physicians in the public sector grew more than 10-fold; and poor people now have access to free healthcare.
There were very large increases in access to education at all levels, including a doubling of enrollment in higher education; real (inflation-adjusted) social spending more than trebled, including a vast expansion of social security benefits; and income inequality under Chávez was reduced more than anywhere in Latin America. By 2008 Venezuela had the most equal distribution of income in the region.
These statistics are accepted by international agencies such as the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the World Bank. They represent a vast improvement in the lives of most Venezuelans.
But Sackur focuses almost exclusively on the negative. He brushes over the vast social transformation that has taken place in just one sentence: "Chávez quoted a stream of economic statistics … unemployment halved, extreme poverty down from 25% to 5%." The average reader might miss this entirely, as it is so tiny and reported as a mere allegation from a source that the media has demonized for the past decade. By contrast, Sackur reports the negative data and even some unsubstantiated allegations as fact.
Sackur conjures up images of China after Tiananmen Square, with fantastically exaggerated rhetoric about a "crackdown on opposition." But there is no such thing, and the mass media in Venezuela is overwhelmingly opposed to the government – one of the most oppositional in the hemisphere.
Most of the western world thinks that Venezuela is some kind of dictatorship where Chávez has made people poorer. They have no idea why he has been re-elected twice, each time by a larger majority. This kind of reporting explains why they are so misinformed; sadly, it is all too typical.
MARK WEISBROT is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.
This article was originally published in The Guardian .