Pilger the anti-journalist

Anti-US campaigner John Pilger has written yet another feature in the New Statesman on Latin America in which he presents his somewhat simplistic leftwing political opinions as fact. His stance is pretty predictable but being a staunch critic of US foreign policy, I feel like something of a Judas to criticise him too harshly. In essence Pilger is mostly right to criticise his chosen targets, but he doesn't seem to be fond of tackling complicated issues. I wonder what his opinion is of Robert Mugabe, for instance.

But what really gets my goat is not the nature of his opinions, but the fact that despite his shameless one-sidedness and blatant bias, he is still afforded the title of "journalist".

How can this be? He does not present fact, and does not even pretend to. He investigates areas in search of evidence to support his very blinkered opinions. I have not once read a balanced article of his and find his writing tiresome because he is so entrenched in the same dogmatic view, ie US/UK/Colombia/Israel/Bush/Blair/Uribe/white men = Bad, Palestine/Chavez/Morales/Ortega/indigenous/dark people = Good.

Close, but no pinot grigio

My comments about Alice O'Keefe's latest New Statesman article were actually read by someone at the NS (amazing, I thought they had abandoned the forums after they began to fill with the hate and bile that random types feel compelled to leave there, especially whenever Venezuela is mentioned) and published in the print edition. Unfortunately they don't archive letters so you will just have to take my word for it.

They sent me an email asking for permission to use the comments and I agreed. When they found out I was one of their writers they replied that they couldn't use my comments (no reason given apart from it was "the rules") but then ended up using them anyway, without explaining why they had broken said rules. I'm guessing that they had had a disappointing mailbag that week and got desperate for copy. I'm just disappointed I didn't win the £25 wine voucher for Letter of the week.

The Stringer goes online

Finally, the main site for which this blog is simply an adjunct has gone online. www.TheStringer.co.uk is now available to view worldwide. Please enjoy... it took a while!

The lttle-discussed left vs left result of Colombia's intractible civil war

Alice O'Keefe has written an interesting piece in the New Statesman about Colombia. She argues that the FARC are strangling political debate in Colombia by de-legitimising the non-FARC aligned leftwing political movement. It's an easy card for Uribe's rightwing election machine to play, dismissing the opposition as being aligned to the cocaine rebels. The Colombian people don't want to know anything about leftwing politics as long as they have these corrupt hostage-taking drug peddlers running their rural areas by force.

The NS have asked for permission to use my forum comments in the print version of the magazine. It's nice to see them paying attention to the stuff that people write there. I'll put the edited version of my comments up here once they are published.

Lucio Vega

My Venezuelan sculptor friend has moved to Buenos Aires and is continuing with his unique brand of symbiotic sculptures, which combine mechanical and organic elements. Some of his installations are kinetic, using springs and other moving elements. He was the most genuine and prolific artist to emerge from the Armando Reveron art school the year I was there, in my opinion.

Check out his blog here.

Christian Parenti on Iraq

I just found this video of Christian Parenti, the subject of a profile piece I am writing for college, talking about the US failure in Iraq.

The most interesting bit is towards the end where he talks about the mind-boggling corruption and incompetence that characterise the invasion, and the impossible mission of defeating a well-armed and well-organised ex-Baathist army resistance. He proposes a pan-regional summit where hostilities are put on hold, where the US recognises its failure and pays reparations to Iraq, and where leaders from across the middle east engage in discussions over a practical way forward - recognising, of course, that this is never going to happen, even under a Clinton administration.

Imperial cocaine bandits

Chávez has, apparently, accused the US of selling cocaine at "below-market prices" in the barrios of Caracas as a means of destabilising Venezuela. This accusation is bizarre as it gives the impression that the US is muscling in on his territory - as if Chávez wants to be the only coke-dealing big daddy in THIS neighbourhood!

Of all the extreme accusation he's come out with, this has to be one of the more unusual ones. It undermines the credibility of his rhetoric and means people are more willing to dismiss what he says, even when he is in fact right.

Just take the whole Farc issue. Chávez had a real opportunity to denounce the many human rights abuses of the Uribe administration by staying as neutral as possible and pressing for a peaceful solution, thus highlighting the failure of the Colombian government to resolve the country's problems.

But instead he has affiliated himself with the Farc rebels and opened himself up to criticism that he aids and abets terrorists. This in itself is an exaggerated claim from hysterical rightwingers but why give your opponents the opportunity to label you in this way if it can be so easily avoided?

As I have always said, Chávez is his own worst enemy.