Group: Near 14,000 murders in Venezuela last year

[hack89]

Source: Washington Post

Close to 14,000 people were murdered in Venezuela last year and the figure could be significantly higher, a prominent human rights group said Thursday, alluding to the rampant crime that has become a central concern of Venezuelans.

Venezuela has one of Latin America's highest murder rates and the government has stopped releasing complete annual figures, making arriving at an exact figure difficult.

In its annual report, the Provea human rights group said a total of 13,985 people were slain last year, but thousands more in this country of 28 million inhabitants were likely killed. The group accused government officials of using statistical loopholes to "hide the true dimension of the phenomenon."

The report said official homicide figures fail to included the number of "unresolved deaths," a term that means authorities have not yet determined the cause of death. Those deaths topped 4,200 in 2009. Incomplete official statistics also leave out the number of Venezuelans killed during clashes with police, which accounted for 2,685 violent deaths, according to the report.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120906955.html

---

That is nearly the same as America - except our population is 13 times greater.

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. This part can't possibly be true:

>>>>> The group accused government officials of using statistical loopholes to "hide the true dimension of the phenomenon.">>>>>>

No government would ever do a thing like that.

[Creative]

2. Especially, not a fascist government.

[bitchkitty]

4. Please give your definition of fascist.

I mean in English, NOT in Idiot-speak.

[Creative]

6. Well, according to Benito Mussolini, the father of fascism:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.

It is important to note that Mussolini was also a socialist.

Mussolini became a member of the Socialist party in 1900, and his politics, like his culture, were exquisitely bohemian. He crossed anarchism with syndicalism, matched Peter Kropotkin and Louis Blanqui with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. More Nietzschean than Marxist, Mussolini's socialism was sui generis, a concoction created entirely by himself. In Socialist circles, nonetheless, he first attracted attention, then applause, and soon widespread admiration. He "specialized" in attacking clericalism, militarism, and reformism. Mussolini urged revolution at any cost.

http://www.lycos.com/info/benito-mussolini--socialist-party.html

[bitchkitty]

7. And none of this Lycos cut-and-paste

has anything to do with Chavez or Venezuela. I asked for your definition, because you so clearly misuse the label, and I'm not surprised that you don't have the words to defend your use of a term that has nothing to do with the Chavez government. Fascist? That's a fucking laugh.

"It is important to note that Mussolini was also a socialist." Oh? Why is that?

[Creative]

9. Sure it does; in fact, another characteristic of many authoritarians is their fondness

for wearing military garb. You asked for a definition (fascism) and I can think of no better authority to define fascism, than its father.

The reason that it important to note that Mussolini was a socialist is to dispel the myth that fascism is different from socialism, when in fact, they are the same with respect to their authoritarian features.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hulk]

14. You really need to get your info from sources OTHER THAN fox.

What a simplistic and incorrect definition of fascism.

You might want to find out a little about what you are talking about from a source besides the neocon/fascist nues netvirk.

[Creative]

16. In case you didn't notice, my source was the father of fascist socialism,

Benito Mussolini--not Fox.

It is clear that the facts do not support some people's romantic notion of socialist utopia, but the facts remain as they always have--FACTS.

Fact – noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

[robinlynne]

19. whoa.... You better do some reading.

[Creative]

22. I have done quite a bit of reading. That is why I no longer have socialist tendencies.

I urge you to give it a try as well.

[AlabamaLibrul]

49. socialist tendencies....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Creative]

51. Yes, when I look back, I laugh too.

:hi:

[JackDragna]

72. You're an equivocating dispenser of untruth.

Socialists are not, as a rule, syndacalists, conservative when it comes to social policy, pro-corporate, Third Way or any of the other characterstics that define fascism. My god, man, all I've seen you do is spout right-wing talking points since you've got here. Learn something.

[Ruperto31]

15. Mussolini lied about the true nature of fascism.

Fascism is capitalism gone nude. Big business and the banks assume direct control of a country through a dictator. The dictator is supported by a mass movement based on the middle class, with brute-force support from thugs, pimps, and other criminals. That is what happened in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany and Chile.

Fascists always claim to be "socialists" in the hope of getting working class support. They may even start some public works programs to foster this illusion. But fascists never support public ownership and democratic control of the economy, which is real socialism. Fascists never get much support from the working class because fascists are usually quite open about wanting to destroy trade unions and democratic rights.

There was a fascist movement in Venezuela, but it OPPOSED Chavez, and was funded by the CIA. They attempted a coup against Chavez, and were defeated.

[Creative]

17. Fascists lie...? No argument from me on that point.

However, the FACT that Mussolini was a fascist/socialist cannot be disputed. He was a true believer.

Mussolini moves to Trieste where he publishes a newspaper for workers. Only a few month after his arrival, he is deported by the Austrian-Hungarian authorities. He moves to Forlì (Emilia Romagna), where he publishes his own socialist newspaper;

http://www.lycos.com/info/benito-mussolini--socialist-party.html

[Ruperto31]

38. Mussolini was an ex-socialist and an opportunist.

He supported whatever political movement that would get him state power. I don't see why you continue to conflate fascism (which is direc rule by the capitalist class) with socialism (which is rule by the working class). This is the kind of disinformation that neocons and other conservatives use to slander socialism.

[Creative]

46. Fascism and socialism deserve to be slandered, for they are both anti-capitalist.

And since capitalism is the only economic system that is compatible with freedom, fascism/socialism = slavery.

The difference between the two is a question of which dictatorship do you prefer.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Creative]

50. A well-regulated, free market zealot, would be a more accurate description.

I believe in a free exchange of goods, services and ideas. The only thing that I demand is that no one be allowed to cheat.

[joshcryer]

64. Not being allowed to cheat subverts the free market and makes it unfree.

Well-regulated + free market are not two concepts I ever see together.

[Creative]

68. You should look a little harder for your response is not rational.

Cheating subverts the free-market process and undermines the confidence of consumers and merchants.

That is why free markets do not exist in fascist, socialist and communist systems.

[JackDragna]

73. Socialism has nothing to do with anti-democratic governments.

All socialism represents is a government where some industries critical to the national interest are government-controlled. Virtually every major government in existence in the world today is socialist in some respect.

[Rozlee]

21. On one level, you're kind of describing the symbiosis of the current...

Republican Party with it's corporatists having married themselves to social issues and the prejudices of certain sections of the population to brainwash them into voting against their own best interests and for the greater good of the corporatists. Actually, few Americans would vote for higher taxes for the rich and to have their jobs sent to India. But, get these corporatist to merge their message into one of anti-gay, anti-black, anti-abortion and they'll get the rabble stirred. Add in a little brainwashing against global warming with the demogogues like Sean Insanity and Rush Limpballs and the corporatists control the little people and get them to vote to send their jobs to India, destroy their planet and close all their schools.

[Ruperto31]

39. Yes, the right wing of the Republican Party is proto-fascist.

Even the other Republicans notice it. If the teabaggers and the militias ever get together, they could form a fine fascist movement under the leadership of Sarah Palin.

[AlphaCentauri]

18. Socialism not equal to Fascist Corporatism

one thing is that Mussolini used to be a member of a party an another what he really believe, like some democrats blue dogs.

Socialism not equal to Fascist Corporatism

Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved the management of sectors of the economy via government or privately controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would, in theory, represent its professional concerns, especially through negotiation of labor contracts and the like. This approach, it was theorized, could result in harmony amongst social classes. Authors have noted, however, that de facto economic corporatism was used in specific instances of silencing opposition and rewarding political loyalty.<38>

In Italy from 1922 until 1943, corporatism became influential amongst Italian nationalists led by Benito Mussolini. The Charter of Carnaro gained much popularity as the prototype of a 'corporative state', having displayed much within its tenets as a guild system combining the concepts of autonomy & authority in a special synthesis. This appealed to Hegelian thinkers who were looking for a new alternative to popular socialist & syndicalist stances which was also a progressive system of governing labor and still a new way of relating to political governance as a whole. Alfredo Rocco spoke of a corporative state and declared corporatist ideology in detail. Rocco would go on to become a member of the Italian Fascist regime Fascismo.

Italian Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level. This non-elected form of state officializing of every interest into the state was professed to better circumvent the marginalization of singular interests (as would allegedly happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democratic voting process). Corporatism would instead better recognize or 'incorporate' every divergent interest as it stands alone into the state organically, according to its supporters, thus being the inspiration behind their use of the term totalitarian, perceivable to them as not meaning a coercive system.

[Creative]

23. They are very similar in that the government controls corporations under

both systems.

While socialism is more to the point with the advocation of government ownership, the fascists maintain control with strict, complex regulations, enforced with rigorous military precision.

Thus, the result is the same. For the owners are stripped of their property rights.

[AlphaCentauri]

25. Capitalism let corporations to control the government, is it Fascism?

Wasn't Fascism about Corporations controlling the government as lobbies do every day in our democracy?

[Creative]

26. Lobbies...? That is an entirely different can of worms.

I despise lobbyists but I don't know how than can be stopped. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to petition the Government for a redress. But that is not fascism as EVERY special interest from A to Z has the right lobby.

[AlphaCentauri]

28. That is the balance of power nobody can predict to control government

A corporation with billions and billions to lobby versus the individual with a couple hundred dollars. Mussolini didn't control corporations he nominated them to control government.

[booley]

32. Gov controlling corporations?

OR corporations controlling governments?

Because from where I sit, they both look the same.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Creative]

42. You should educate yourself, for if you are unable to grasp the similarities between

fascism and socialism, you have quite a bit to learn.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Creative]

47. Imagine that, a communist trying to explain how he is not advocating totalitarianism.

That is a difficult task when you consider that Trotsky promoted the doctrine of "permanent revolution."

[struggle4progress]

24. Mussolini was expelled, from the Italian socialist party to which he once belonged, during WWI

By the end of the war, Mussolini was an antisocialist and a nationalist

[Creative]

27. Not anti-socialist, but national socialist (NAZI).

[AlphaCentauri]

29. well the NAZI party hated communist

so there were huge differences in their doctrines

[Creative]

33. That is not entirely true.

German Communists voted for the Nazis, for freedom (capitalism) was their common enemy.

Sure, there are differences, both they are merely flip sides of that evil coin we call totalitarianism.

[ChangoLoa]

37. German communists were put in extermination camps by the nazis.

Like the French, the Italian and the Spanish communists/socialists by the fascists.

[Creative]

41. That was because of their relationship with Russian communists.

[ChangoLoa]

57. Not at all, you're improvising. Fascism was born as reaction to communism/socialism

Do you know the Spanish Civil War?

[struggle4progress]

31. No, Nazism was a German political movement. Mussolini started Fascism, an Italian political movement

Moreover, you make naive use of the translation "National Socialist"

Nobody argues that Iraq's Republican Guard had anything to do with the GOP here in the US, despite the common use of the word "Republican" in the translation, nor does anyone argue that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has anything to do with the Democratic Party here

Neither should one argue that "Sozialistische" in the name of the Nazi party means the Nazis held the views of their socialist contemporaries

"Sozialistische" was added to the name "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" to facilitate the absorption of Streicher's small and violent "Deutschsozialistische Partei" (DSP), which was essentially anti-semitic: the name of the DSP had been chosen to resemble the name of the dominant party of the time, the "Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands" (SPD), which was socialist in outlook

[Creative]

34. Their differences were so slight that they became allies.

Moreover, Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda held the following view:

"To be a socialist, is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, socialism."

[struggle4progress]

56. This subthread is pointlessly derailing the main thread discussion, which involves nothing

that would illuminated by a careful examination of quotes from the Nazi's propagandist Goebbels

There are reasons to think carefully about the era, but I do not think short snippets from Goebbels alone can shed much light on the times or on the nature of the struggle. None of the socialists of that time would have called the Nazis socialist: the socialists of the Weimar era were concentrated in the SPD; further to the left were the Communists, concentrated in the KPD. The Nazis immediately, on seizure of power, set out to suppress opponent groups like the SPD and KPD, as well as members of other organizations (notably, Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to give the stiff-arm salute)

Have a nice day :hi:

[Creative]

60. "The Nazis set out to suppress opponent group..." Really?

Of course they did, that's what fascists do. The problem is that people seem to forget that the socialists/communists did the same things.

My point is that there is another option. It's called Freedom.

[struggle4progress]

62. It's dishonest to compare the socialist SPD government of the Weimar era with the Nazis

There were a variety of political parties in Germany during the Weimar era; the Nazis promptly banned them all. The Weimar government didn't set up concentration camps; the Nazis established concentration camps almost as soon as they came to power. The SPD in power didn't jail people for simply refusing to show support for the SPD; the Nazis in power almost immediately began jailing and beating the crap out of people (like Jehovah's Witnesses) who wouldn't give the stiff-arm salute

Again, this diversion is simply derailing conversation about the OP

:hi:

[JackDragna]

74. "Freedom" is not a political theory.

Many prosperous European nations are socialists and have more political freedoms than the United States.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[On the Road]

35. Even if Fascism is Totalitarian,

not all totalitarian states are fascist.

Mussolini also said: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Chavez is locked in a death struggle with corporate power. In that way, he is the opposite of what Mussolini practiced.

Venezuela is fascinating in that very few states have power distributed somewhat equally between socialist and corporate interests. In the long run, it is magnified version of US partisanship. In the long run, it tends to corrupt and radicalize both sides.

What this has to do with the murder rate I don't know. It has to give pause to anyone holding the theory that socialism results in less poverty (which it has) and less crime (which it hasn't).

[Creative]

43. Yes, but under fascism, the relationship between the state and corporations is not voluntary.

Rather, corporations are controlled by stringent regulations that render them powerless to manage their own affairs. They either operate within the parameters put forth by the state, or they cease to exist.

[On the Road]

53. It May be a Matter of Emphasis,

but in my mind fascism aligns business with government to control the population, whereas socialism aligns the populace with government to control business.

Venezuela is closer to the latter.

[Creative]

59. The problem with your analogies is that no one controls the government.

[On the Road]

61. They're Not Analogies

and I really don't understand the relevance of your observation.

In any case, it is certainly not true that the government is beyond control. In a lot of other Latin American countries, presidents historically serve at the pleasure of the business community. If they step out of line like Salvador Allende, their days in office are numbered. Those governments are closer to what we would call fascist on the scale of things.

Even in the case of Chavez, he was ousted when his policies ran afoul of the Venezuelan business community. Since returning to power, he's pretty much beyond the control of anyone as long as he retains his grass-roots popularity. But he has directed the largess of government at the working classes against the protestations of the corporate class, and by that standard should be considered a socialist.

[Creative]

63. Okay, the problem with your scenarios is that in one of them,

you are controlling the people and in the other, you are controlling the corporations. Meanwhile, the government is out of control. Specifically, Chavez's government in Venezuela does not recognize property rights. And without property rights, there can be no human rights.

[On the Road]

69. I Agree with You That Chavez Does Not Respect Property Rights

and that is a big problem with how he is running the country.

By traditional definitions, though, he is still a socialist as opposed to a fascist.

[Creative]

78. At least we can agree on the idea of property rights.

The point I have been trying to make is the neither fascists or socialists believe in their sanctity. Thus, they are the same in that they both represent dictatorial forms of government.

Capitalism is not perfect, but an examination of the various economies that exist in the world reveals that those with capitalist tendencies, have higher standards of living than do others.

[defendandprotect]

79. Fascism begins much earlier in Northern Italy -- 1400's ....

wotj Christian Corporatism --

Keep in mind they didn't label Feudalism until it was almost over --

Mussolini labeled what he was involved with -- and we still carry that

concept today of corporatism being fascism.

[defendandprotect]

80. US has killed more than 1 million Muslims based on lie about WMD ... is that fascism?

[robcon]

3. That would mean the government would be able to control the media.

A totalitarian government. Could that possibly be the government of St. Hugo?

[NeoConsSuck]

5. You are kidding, right?

Government controlling the media? You're probably thinking of the government of Mr. One Termer.

[DissedByBush]

13. Chavez wants to control the Internet now

He's already moving to restrict speech on the Internet

http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/12/10/en_pol_esp_venezuelan-govnt-se_10A4838455.shtml

And for those pesky International sites he has no control over, he proposes that the government will handle all Internet access

http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/12/10/en_pol_esp_government-to-set-up_10A4839691.shtml

[robinlynne]

20. and what exactly do you think is happening here right now? hint: wikileaks

[AlphaCentauri]

30. ouch!

[DissedByBush]

55. Not ouch, just pathetic blind loyalty n/t

[DissedByBush]

54. Nice try, but not even close

I can still easily and legally get to Wikileaks by hundreds of means because my Internet access isn't controlled by the government.

http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html

All the government did was have the DNS entry rescinded, which it can do for any .com, .net or .org address.

With the government in control of our Internet connections they would have blocked wikileaks.ch and all the mirrors within and any search with the word "wikileaks" in it. That is what Chavez is putting in place.

I still love your attempt at redirect. Care to actually condemn Chavez' attempt to take over Internet access in his country?

Is censorship OK just because it's your second-favorite wanna-be dictator doing it?

[joshcryer]

66. The US doesn't have a Great Firewall (like China).

There are no sites that the US bans (though some ISPs might try to selectively disallow them).

[robinlynne]

70. The state department got paypal and mastercard to stop accepting payments from wikileaks.

Jow Lieberman's personal crusade.
and federal employees are not allowed to READ ABOUT wikileaks or they may lose their jobs.
not cenorship yet?

[DissedByBush]

75. I can still get there

And WikiLeaks is still well-funded from various international sources, and the international community has helped take over hosting costs.

We are not talking about a guy with a blog that is critical of the government. We are talking about classified information that was illegally leaked, potentially getting people killed. And still the government is powerless to prohibit its publication under New York Times Co. v. United States (Pentagon Papers case).

Note the newspapers publishing many parts of the classified information from WikiLeaks, with no government shutdown, no threat of fines by the government, no manhunt for the editors and publishers. I read news stories about this every day as the journalists comb through WikiLeaks for juicy stuff.

"federal employees are not allowed to READ ABOUT wikileaks or they may lose their jobs"

Federal employees with clearances signed an agreement not to read classified material that they are not allowed to read, and they verified that they knew the potential penalties for violating those terms. You have a problem with people being reminded to abide by the agreements they voluntarily signed in order to get special privileges?

The rest of the country has no legal problem accessing and reading this information.

You are constitutionally incapable of criticizing Chavez, aren't you? At least you could try to support this attempt at censorship.

All you do is deflect. Poor debate tactic, easily caught.

[Rage for Order]

52. Venezuela isn't trying to censor the internet

They just want to maximize the efficiency of the internet in Venezuela. From the article in your post:

"the State shall set up an interconnection point or access to the network of Internet service providers in Venezuela with a view to handling outgoing and incoming traffic in Venezuela, in order to use more efficiently the country's networks, given the strategic value of the sector."

[joshcryer]

67. They are going to have a multi-gigabit connection.

It'd be damn hard to saturate their pipe through normal usage.

[DissedByBush]

76. That was sarcasm, right?

They are proposing this law at the same time they are proposing bringing the Internet under their censorship laws.

I swear if Bush had tried the stuff Chavez does we'd have been screaming bloody murder about it.

That's a good criteria for a reality check. If Chavez does something, imagine what your response would be if Bush had done it.

[Judi Lynn]

71. Television in Venezuela: Who Dominates the Media?

13.12.10
Television in Venezuela:
Who Dominates the Media?
by Mark Weisbrot and Tara Ruttenberg

It is commonly reported in the international press, and widely believed, that the government of President Hugo Chávez controls the media in Venezuela. For example, writing about Venezuela's September elections for the National Assembly, the Washington Post's deputy editorial page editor and columnist, Jackson Diehl, referred to the Chávez "regime's domination of the media. . . ."1 In an interview on CNN, Lucy Morillon of Reporters Without Borders stated, "President Chávez controls most of the TV stations."2 And on PBS in November 2010, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega stated that the Venezuelan media is "virtually under the control of Chávez."3 Such statements are made regularly in the major media and almost never challenged.

Table 1 shows the evolution of Venezuelan television audience share from 2000-2010. There are three categories: private broadcast channels, which are privately owned and available on broadcast television without payment; the state channels, which are run by the government and also broadcast without payment4 by the viewer; and private paid TV, which includes cable and satellite, for which the subscriber must pay a fee; and other paid programming that is being watched during the time of the survey.

As can be seen from the table, as of September 2010, Venezuelan state TV channels had just a 5.4 percent audience share. Of the other 94.6 percent of the audience, 61.4 percent were watching privately owned television channels, and 33.1 percent were watching paid TV.

Since the private TV owners are mostly against the government, it is clear that more than 94 percent of the TV that is seen by Venezuelans is not pro-government. In fact, much of the private media is stridently anti-government, in ways that go beyond the boundaries of what is permitted in the United States, for example.5 There are no data that describe the breakdown of audience share of the various TV channels on the basis of political bias. However, it is clear from this data, based on household surveys over a 10-year period, that statements about the Venezuelan government "controlling" or "dominating" the media are not only exaggerated, but simply false.

More:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/wr131210.html

[DissedByBush]

77. And one by one he's getting rid of the opposition channels

Oh, and don't forget, even though they're private they're still required by law to broadcast government propaganda.

He has the laws in place now. Insulting the president is a criminal offense. Damn, most of us would have been in jail during the Bush regime.

But I do like this audience share-based analysis, which is far better than the pure "how many stations" game. Although the government runs or funds many big stations, the people obviously don't like them much.

[JDPriestly]

8. Provea is the group that publishes this paper.

Here is a link to the list of their supporters according to their website.

http://www.derechos.org.ve/proveaweb/?page_id=3299

Open Society Institute is affiliated with Soros.

Here is what the Open Society Institute reports on Venezuela.

http://www.soros.org/search/results?SearchableText=venezuela&go-btn.x=0&go-btn.y=0&quicksearch=true

Human Rights
Focus Areas
The Latin America Program supports organizations that advance human rights and strengthen the rule of law.

The program gives priority to civil society groups and individuals that work to:

monitor and report on human rights abuses and advocate for rights-respecting policies and practices in select countries (Mexico and Venezuela);
strengthen regional mechanisms and initiatives to protect human rights;
improve transitional justice outcomes for victims of human rights abuses in ways that strengthen democratic institutions and fight impunity.

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/lap/focus_areas/human-rights

I noticed that the Merck Foundation is also listed as a funder for Provea, but when I don't find a grant to Provea by the Merck Foundation listed in this quick, superficial search of the internet.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Merck+Foundation+provea&form=APPCS1

Maybe I am just not searching correctly.

[bemildred]

10. NGOs seem to be proliferating like fleas on the hind end of a dog. nt

[joshcryer]

65. The statistics are nothing new.

Venezuela is well recognized as one of the highest murder rates in the world, regardless of source.

[rayofreason]

12. Venezuela's murder rate,,,

..is worse than Mexico's, and this has been known for quite a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/world/americas/23venez.html

The first duty of government is to provide safety for its citizens. The government of Venezuela is doing a pretty shitty job of its highest priority.

[COLGATE4]

36. Shhh. You'll have the cadre of Fearless Leader's idolizers on

you at the count of 3...2...1...

[NoodleyAppendage]

58. Per Capita, it does look like they are correct. See here...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita