Chavez backers rally to end Venezuela term limits

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Chavez backers rally to end Venezuela term limits
By RACHEL JONES, Associated Press Writer Rachel Jones, Associated Press Writer – Thu Feb 12, 8:43 pm ET

CARACAS, Venezuela – Tens of thousands of Venezuelans clad in red flooded the streets of the capital on Thursday, saying a referendum that would end term limits is the only way President Hugo Chavez can complete what he calls a socialist revolution.

Nearby, a few hundred opponents rallied in a square after the government denied their request to mount a giant march across the city, as they did last weekend. They have fought Chavez in a bitter struggle that culminates in Sunday's vote, which is expected to be close.

Supporters jumped and screamed as Chavez rode through the crowd atop a red truck. They danced to salsa music booming from sound trucks, then listened rapt as Chavez addressed them.




Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090213/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_venezuela_referendum

---

This article was caught and posted already by EFerrari, in the Latin America forum.

Here's the original link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x11584

[cobalt1999]

1. Chavez will have them re-voting until they get the result he wants.

Because of course in a country of 26,000,000 he is the ONLY one who can do the job. :eyes:

[Judi Lynn]

2. So you believe the Democrats who kept re-electing FDR were assholes, too, eh?

And FDR was a power-mad dictator?

If it weren't for the filthy Republicans who knew there will NEVER be a right-winger who will be honestly relected multiple times who went crooked and changed our laws to prevent multiple re-elections, that original arrangement would STILL be the structure we use here.

Nice try.

[cobalt1999]

3. I am a firm believer in term limits.

In a country of millions, you can't convince me there aren't people that can do the job as well or even better.

Nice try.

[Thothmes]

5. People who elected FDR for his forth term did not have the

faintest idea as to how much the Presidents health had deteriorated. The Democratic Party power structure knew that FDR would not live to see the end of his forth term. That is the major reason they engineered the ouster of Henry Wallace as VP in favor of Truman. They knew Truman would be the President very soon. IMO FDR should never have run for the fourth term.

[Judi Lynn]

6. The focus was the fact our country had NO TERM LIMITS WHATSOEVER

until the Republicans changed our laws to prevent a Democrat from ever having a good long stretch getting our country back on track and keeping it there, as did FDR.

The topic is actually term limits, and the fact that our country never had them until a beloved Democrat kept getting elected and the right-wing revolted and high-jacked the law. Anyone looking a little more deeply also knows they attempted to overthrow him in a coup, knowing they couldn't win in an election against him.

On edit, quick search to produce link on coup to lead readers to look for more information if they are unaware of this:

Assassination and Coup d'État attempt

On February 15 1933, after his victory in the 1932 election, President-elect Roosevelt was nearly assassinated in Miami, Florida. Chicago mayor Anton J. Cermak was killed. The assassin, Giuseppe Zangara of Chicago, was convicted of murder and executed in the electric chair on March 20, 1933.

In 1933 Major General Smedley Darlington Butler came forward to Congress to reveal a coup d'état plot against President Roosevelt sponsored by big-money interests.

More:
http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt#Assassination_and_Coup_d.27.C9tat_attempt

[cobalt1999]

7. So what?

Term limits are a good idea. Even FDR wasn't irreplaceable. The only people that don't like them are those that get involved in "personality cults".

[Judi Lynn]

9. The part where "democracy" is concerned is the will of the people.

Right-wing drooling idiots attempt to insinuate the voters who elect leftists are zombies, easily influenced by progressive "personality cult" anti-Christs, unlike the right-wing ideal of fine, intelligent, well-informed leaders like Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenneger, all those ex-football and baseball players, Sonny Bono, and God-knows-what.

I really see what you mean.

http://www.unknownhypnotist.com.nyud.net:8090/images/gianni/Gianni020.jpg http://www.comedycv.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/davidknight/david-knight-2008-february.jpg http://www.learnstagehypnosis.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/images/alanmarriot.jpg http://www.bbc.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/bradford/content/images/2007/09/20/debbie_hypno_203x152.jpg

Look directly at my eyes, not to the side of my eyes, but into my eyes.
Vote for Chavez.

[cobalt1999]

12. That post made no sense.

Come back when you can articulate an intelligent response. :eyes:

[ronnie624]

15. In a genuine democracy,

there is always an effective method of limiting a term in office. If you don't like the incumbent, you simply vote the individual from office. Writing term limits into law removes the choice of the voters.

Simply stating that you believe in term limits, and insinuating that those who oppose them are too stupid to understand their choices is not a very effective argument.

[cobalt1999]

16. In an ideal world...

People don't become corrupt.
People don't try to squash their opposition.
People don't suppress dissenting media.
People don't become isolated.
People don't abuse their power.

However, here on Earth, people do all of the above all the time.

Try this for an argument, Term Limits:
- minimizes the time a bad leader has in office
- minimizes the time a leader has to destroy or vilify his opposition
- minimizes the ability to suppress any dissenting media
- minimizes the time for even good people to become corrupt with power
- allows new ideas and practices to be implemented
- puts the leader back into the population (so he better not piss it off too much)

I have a philosophical difference with the belief that "only one guy can do the job". My view is that no one person is irreplaceable.

[ronnie624]

20. You're argument

is that term limits eliminate corruption, but the evidence overwhelmingly disputes that claim. You also falsely attribute the position that "only one guy can do the job" to those who oppose term limits, when in fact, they have stated clearly that the voters should ultimately decide who holds office, and that term limits interfere with that decision.

[cobalt1999]

22. No that's NOT my argument.

Term limits do NOT eliminate corruption. Never said that.

What I DID say was term limits minimize the TIME a person has to become corrupt or to engage in corruption. Big difference.

History is full of examples of men coming to power bringing peace and prosperity to the land; at least for a short while, then becoming oppressive, then using their power to gain prestige & wealth.

As for your Ideal world argument, "voters should ultimately decide who holds office, and that term limits interfere with that decision"...here in the REAL world the problem is that people in power tend to destroy those who might actually get them thrown out of power. The voters never really get that option as opponents are jailed, killed, smeared, charged with fake crimes, or elections are simply rigged. Then media is co-opted and a true "cult of personality" arises.

The only true safe-guard for a democracy is to throw the bastards out after a set time.

BTW, I'm not singling out Chavez, it applies to all leaders. I voted for Obama, but I want his ass on the street 8 years from now.

[ronnie624]

25. Term limits are already built in to a democratic system.

If voters wish to vote for an incumbent who is not corrupt and who is an effective leader, they should have that option. Corruption is an issue that all people throughout the world must deal with, whether their systems have term limits or not. As a citizen of a presumed democracy, it is your responsibility to keep yourself informed about your representatives and VOTE accordingly, and not depend on laws that limit the choices of others.

There are many examples of governments without term limits, and you have yet to provide evidence that they are more corruptible than ours. In fact, you have provided no links to any information whatever. We have been treated to nothing more than a litany of your beliefs and unsupportable claims.

[cobalt1999]

26. Good god. Have you never read a history book?

You are living in LA-LA land.

There are no perfect democracies out there. There are no set of citizens that stay informed. There are no incorruptible leaders.

I've yet to see a link to this perfect society. I'll make a deal. For every example of this perfect democracy you provide, I'll provide 2 that are corrupt and I'll probably be able to show you where your example is wrong too.

Go for it.

[cobalt1999]

27. Here is a link for you

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3737622

A good example of a democratically elected government without term limits. Stupid Zimbabweans didn't live up to their "responsibility to keep yourself informed about your representatives and VOTE accordingly"

[ronnie624]

28. Mugabe’s security forces on Friday arrested Roy Bennett,

therefore Venezuela should have presidential term limits?

Perhaps you can expand upon that claim. How does it follow that your beliefs about term limits should be imposed upon Venezuelans?

[cobalt1999]

29. LOL

You lose.

Still waiting for your perfect world example...until then I can post real world examples supporting term limits for days.

Waiting, waiting, waiting.

[ronnie624]

31. Your wait will be a long one.

I don't know what "perfect world example" or "real world examples supporting term limits" means.

I apologize for taking so long to respond to your silly rejoinders. Between them, I actually read articles posted by other members and search for information on the topic under discussion.

[cobalt1999]

33. I'm sure you don't understand

You live in a world where everyone behaves and voters have all the power and leaders are incorruptible.

Therefore, there is no need for term limits in your world.

I, however, live in the real world where people need limits to their power.


Now, I'm off to spend the weekend in New Orleans, enjoy yours too.

[ronnie624]

36. We both live in the same world.

I however, do not believe that term limits translate into less corruption or that a lack of term limits translates into more corruption. I cannot believe it, because no one has yet provided a compelling argument for such belief.

I do believe however, that as a citizen of a democracy, I should be able to vote for the most capable candidate for office, and that my choices should not be limited by laws designed to prevent reform.

[hack89]

60. So Bush could not have done even more damage to America

if he serve 3 or 4 terms? I think people like him are a classic example of why we need term limits.

[ronnie624]

63. The "election" of George Bush, in my opinion,

indicates a need for reform in the areas of campaign finance, lobbying and education. Enacting laws and setting democracy on cruise control will never work. It requires constant vigilance, as the founders of our country said on many occasions. The fact that the Bush administration existed in the first place, and an assessment of the damage done by these criminals, shows clearly that term limits cannot be relied upon to prevent corruption and incompetence. Only a constantly informed populace can do that. As it is, we already have term limits, and they did not prevent the nightmare of the last eight years.

[hack89]

65. So saying someone is democratically elected

and chosen by the people may not mean anything - it is the system that elected them that needs to be scrutinized? Won't get any argument here. It does argue, however, that term limits are useful for preventing someone the time needed to pervert the system to engineer his perpetual election.

[ronnie624]

68. It seems to me

that one of the most effective means of reforming government in a democracy, is the ability to keep in place, leaders who have proven themselves capable and uncorrupted. Removing a popular and principled politician before they have done all the good they can, is cutting off one's nose in spite of one's face, so to speak. They are extremely rare, after all. There already exists a perfectly viable way to remove bad representatives: vote them out of office. That is the essence of democracy. Of course, that requires that one stay informed about the issues and politicians, but I prefer to invest in the required effort of doing so, instead of relying on term limits, hope and the law of probability. The fact that George Bush was 'elected' in the first place, is a clear indicator that our problems are much bigger than the distraction issue of "term limit reform".

The people of Venezuela (the working class and poor who are a clear majority), see in President Chavez, a leader who will work on their behalf, as indicated by his massive approval ratings, and the improvements that we have all witnessed under the aegis of his leadership. He represents to them, an opportunity to institute lasting reform that will benefit Venezuela as a whole, instead of the tiny minority of the well-off and ruling oligarchy. It is no mere coincidence that this minority (despite the claims of "polarization" in U.S. media) is so violently opposed to the elimination of term limits.

I could say much more on this issue, but I have to go to work now, dammit.

[hack89]

70. Popular is meaningless and principled is subjective

Reagan was considered both by many - there is no reason to belief that absent term limits he could have remained in office until his death.

[Judi Lynn]

62. Interesting quote from Barack Obama on term limits. This appeared in a posted article

in the Latin America forum, posted by Peace Patriot yesterday.

From the article:

~snip~
....Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), who recently proposed lifting presidential term limits in the aftermath of Barack Obama's election. Obama himself would add, "I'm generally not in favor of term limits... I believe in one form of term limits. They're called elections."

[bitchkitty]

17. And your posts make perfect sense,

at least to me. You have nothing intelligent to offer the discussion, other than asserting that "term limits are a good idea". You don't say why, or offer any good reason, because you don't have one.

So like all of your kind, your tactic is to insult the intelligence of someone who DOES articulate her reasons, back up her assertions, and gives an intelligent argument.

[cobalt1999]

19. Trying reading post #16

However, I didn't even use any silly pictures so you might not consider it an "intelligent argument" :rofl:

[bitchkitty]

21. Why does this reply merit a LMAO smiley?

Who said anything about silly pictures? Were you talking about yourself?

I was mainly talking about your insult to Judi Lynn. And your argument might be intelligent to some, but that's all it is, an argument. You inject personal insults into a debate, it turns into an argument.

[cobalt1999]

23. Then why jump in on a reply about her silly pictures?

"Who said anything about silly pictures?" -- I was referring to Judi silly picture post before you decided to jump in. Did you even look at the post I was referring to, or did you just get riled up and had to post something/anything?

Want to talk the pros/cons of term limits? Fine. Otherwise, I'm done wasting my time with someone who has yet to contribute any ideas or arguments of their own.

[bitchkitty]

44. My beliefs remain the same -

The people should decide who their President will be. If they want to continue to elect a leader who has proven time and again that he is for the people, they should be able to elect that leader, no matter how long he has been in office.

I don't get riled up. I did, however, point out your completely undeserved insult of a woman who has contributed far more in intelligent discussion that you have, or for that matter almost everyone else.

[LanternWaste]

24. I've always thought that...

I've always thought that voting a person out of office was a most effective and efficient way of imposing term limits.

[Thothmes]

42. Term Limits

kept Ronald Reagan from a third term.

[Malidictus Maximus]

14. It was a constitutional amendment, not an easy thing to pass.

I think that many people like the idea of term limits because it is a common, and probably usually correct belief, that holding power for a long time corrupts, or at the minimum isolates, even the best of people. I don't think it's worked out well here in California, but there is a lot of sentiment that cannot be attributed just to right wingers. It was quite shocking to many, even Democrats, when FDR ran for a third term.

"if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life"
-Thomas Jefferson 1807. It is arguable if Washington left after two terms because he was highly aware that everything he did was precedent or if it was just his age.

Would you really wanted to have risked a third Reagan term?

As much as I have truly enjoyed Hugo flipping Bush and the PNAC the bird :-)

[Threedifferentones]

54. No, I bet no one here on DU believes that about FDR.

Apparently, though, you believe FDR got the population to overturn a Constitutional ban on term limits, since that is what would make his case comparable to Chavez's....

Presumably the "nice try" is referring to your own post, although it really was not that great an effort....

Chavez could obviously groom a suitable successor if he were really worried only about the people of VE. Moreover, it is entirely possible to rail against global capitalism and all its evils, pander to the poor of your country, AND be a selfish asshole like every other president in the world, all at the same time. The enemy of my enemy is not always really my friend.

[ck4829]

4. Sounds like Chavez's supporters could be great friends with South Dakota's Republicans

They keep putting an abortion ban bill on the ballot that gets rejected by a wide margin every election.

[Judi Lynn]

10. Rejected by a wide margin in Venezuela? Is that right? In a package of 69 separate

issues, many of them highly controversial in Venezuela, that referendum lumping them all together, to be decided by one yes or no, and STILL losing by only a percent or so?

I really see you have an eye for detail. Those two groups, locations, issues have so much in common, don't they?

[fascisthunter]

45. it helps weak arguments

Kinda like saying Al Queda and Iraq in the same sentence....

[EFerrari]

35. The last referendum barely lost last time. In fact, the opposition feared

Chavez would ask for a recount or some similar measure.

[Judi Lynn]

8. Interesting comment in the Guardian after an opinion piece by former NY Times

"reporter," Francisco Toro, who had to resign when he was outed as a virulent anti-Chavist in Caracas, belonging to several anti-Chavez NGO's, supported by US taxpayers' funds funneled to them by N.E.D.

Here's that great reader's comment, following Toro's opinion piece:

There is no limit to how long a UK Prime Minister can serve in that position should they continually be re-elected unlike many other nations.

Hardly democratic to limit the term in office to a specific number of elections or years if someone is best placed and popular enough to continue to retain it.

This is not to say Mr Chavez is the best person for Venezuela for the next 20 years but it also does not mean he is not......that is for others to decide under who's leadership they live but to say someone MUST leave office after a certain period and MUST be replaced by someone less competent because they have been in power for X amount of time cannot be democratic.

Conversely, of course, a person should not hold on to office forever if there is a better candidate to replace them in a democracy.

I do not understand what the point of this article really is, other than to have a little bash at Chavez or Venezuela, when the UK does not put a time limit or re-election limit on any Prime Minister.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/12/venezuela-hugo-chavez-referendum

[ronnie624]

32. Many of them are quite interesting and/or humorous.

- Luckily an increasing number of Venesuelans know how to read and write in Spanish better than I do, due to state funding from oil wealth.

- This guys has form. Even the New York times coudln't stand his bias
http://www.narconews.com/Issue27/article584.html
I know Chavez is no angel. But he has been elected several times in free and fair elections. Enough said....

- This is about MONEY.
Obviously AzulCaribe feels he should be getting the money, not the poor people of Venezuela!
Anyway what is the problem? if Hugo wins elections he stays in power, if he loses he's out!
It's called democracy!

- He isn't going to be President for life.
There is going to be elections, if he wins, he has a mandate to rule.
If he loses, he is out, that is the system we have here in the UK!

[willing dwarf]

11. Venezuela would be better off broadening its leadership

If the power is going to rest in the hands of the people, as Chavez has asserted it must, then surely it would be better to cultivate young leaders who can carry on. Zimbabwe is one of many places where the urge to hold on to a popular leader brings about more problems than it solves.

Seems we are hard wired to look for kings and messiahs. How will we the people be saved when we need to relearn always the mistakes of the past?

[Robbien]

37. Only the US media says the leadership is in one person's hands

Just as the US media kept saying that Cuba would fall when Castro fell ill. Of course it didn't. Castro had a large government with many good people ready to take over in his stead.

Same with Venezuela. Chavez isn't the only person in power there. There is a whole hierarchy of people doing the job of running the country.

But if one only reads US based stories one would be under the false impression that Chavez and only Chavez is running the whole show.

[EFerrari]

39. That's right. It's sort of comical and embarrassing at the same time.

[paulk]

53. out of those "many good people" in Cuba

Castro's brother was the best choice?

[Tartiflette]

57. umm...

Bush...Kennedy.

[hack89]

61. I missed where the Cuban people choose Raul

in a nation-wide election.

[Mika]

71. Raul was elected in the 2008 elections.

Cuba has a parliamentary system. Raul was elected to his parliament seat (as a representative of Santiago) from which he was elected as VP of the council of ministers, which, according to the Cuban constitution, made him next in line when President Fidel Castro stepped down. He had to be affirmed to that position by the elected parliament.

What? Parliamentary systems aren't democracies now?

[hack89]

72. Real ones are. nt

[Mika]

73. Well, you're the "expert*".

* - I'm being sarcastic with the use of the term "expert" here,
because 99.9% of DU's anti Cuba "experts" have never set
foot on the island nor done even remedial research on Cuba.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[hack89]

75. Only kings and dictators rule for 40 years

I think that is a very simple lesson that history teaches us.

[Mika]

76. Well, I guess you should learn some then.

I know I've posted this for you before, but it doesn't stop you from repeating the same bullshit over and over and over again and again.

Dorticós Torrado, Osvaldo
http://www.bartleby.com/65/do/Dorticos.html

1919–83, president of Cuba (1959–76). A prosperous lawyer, he participated in Fidel Castro’s revolutionary movement and was imprisoned (1958). He escaped and fled to Mexico, returning to Cuba after Castro’s triumph (1959). As minister of laws (1959) he helped to formulate Cuban policies. He was appointed president in 1959. Intelligent and competent, he wielded considerable influence. In 1976 the Cuban government was reorganized, and Castro assumed the title of president; Dorticós was named a member of the council of state.

You know jack shit about Cuba. Period.



on edit = added bold highlights for your edification.

[hack89]

77. Of course - Castro had no power prior to 76. Got it

The Soviet Union, China and Zimbabwe have(had) constitutions and elections. Elections don't mean democracy.

Show me where the communist party has ever come close to being voted out of power in Cuba

[Mika]

79. Yes. Castro had ALL the power. Did EVERYTHING. Bus routes too.

Castro personally taught every Cuban to read. Castro personally taught every Cuban teacher to teach. Castro personally taught every Cuban doctor in their specialty. Castro personally taught every Cuban nurse. Castro personally taught every Cuban soldier. Castro personally taught every Cuban construction worker. Castro personally taught every Cuban cane cutter. Castro personally taught every Cuban cigar maker. Castro personally taught every Cuban farmer. Castro personally taught every Cuban everything.

Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that
this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that Castro did this Castro did that

:sarcasm:


What you know about Cuba would fit on the head of a very tiny pin, and there'd some room left over.

[hack89]

80. Don't be stupid

Stalin didn't do everything - neither did Pol Pot, Mao or any other dictator.

You are a very angry person, aren't you? Why do you take all this so personally?

[Mika]

81. Because I have family there.

So.. well.. you know, I can't visit them because of the stupidity and ignorance about Cuba many Americans display, and accept. Witness out gov policies in respect to Cuba as the prime example. Some of the ignorant declarations posted on DU about Cuba by persons who know jack shit about are examples also.

Its one thing to not know about something, but another to be posting BS on an influential political forum about a topic one knows little about, and to argue in an ever repeating loop with persons who've been there, lived there, and have family there.

You have countlessly displayed your ignorance on the place. Please.. butt out, or take the time to learn about it. Thanks. :hi:

[hack89]

82. I sympathize about your family situation

and hope that under Obama everything will soon be resolved.

But you will never convince me that Cuba is a true democracy or that Castro is anything other than a despot. And ignorance has nothing to do with it.

[Political Heretic]

83. Du is many things, but its not influenital.

I say that with love. I think its best when we don't have delusions of grandeur :)

[EFerrari]

84. DU branded Caribou Barbie. If that isn't influence or grandeur

I don't know what is.

lol

:)

[Political Heretic]

85. Heh... if you say so :)

[Judi Lynn]

13. Book suggestion which has been recommended by DU'ers, a must for anyone

starting to get a deeper view of what has been happening in our hemisphere than what we have been lead to believe through our corporate media:

OPEN VEINS OF LATIN AMERICA
Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent

by Eduardo Galeano
Translated by Cedric Belfrage
New Introduction by Isabel Allende

“A superbly written, excellently translated, and powerfully persuasive expose which all students of Latin American and U.S. history must read.” — CHOICE, American Library Association

Since its U.S. debut a quarter-century ago, this brilliant text has set a new standard for historical scholarship of Latin America. It is also an outstanding political economy, a social and cultural narrative of the highest quality, and perhaps the finest description of primitive capital accumulation since Marx.

Rather than chronology, geography, or political successions, Eduardo Galeano has organized the various facets of Latin American history according to the patterns of five centuries of exploitation. Thus he is concerned with gold and silver, cacao and cotton, rubber and coffee, fruit, hides and wool, petroleum, iron, nickel, manganese, copper, aluminum ore, nitrates, and tin. These are the veins which he traces through the body of the entire continent, up to the Rio Grande and throughout the Caribbean, and all the way to their open ends where they empty into the coffers of wealth in the United States and Europe.

Weaving fact and imagery into a rich tapestry, Galeano fuses scientific analysis with the passions of a plundered and suffering people. An immense gathering of materials is framed with a vigorous style that never falters in its command of themes. All readers interested in great historical, economic, political, and social writing will find a singular analytical achievement, and an overwhelming narrative that makes history speak, unforgettably.

More:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/openvein.htm

http://laplana.indymedia.org.nyud.net:8090/files/images/eduardo-galeano.jpg

Eduardo Galeano

[ronnie624]

18. Democracy and accountability: The perverse effects of term limits

In a recent paper (Conconi, Sahuguet and Zanardi, 2008), we examine the importance of electoral accountability for international peace and cooperation, focusing on the impact of executive term limits on inter-state conflicts. One of the few stylised facts in international relations is that democratic states are much less likely to fight one another than other pairs of states. According to an often-quoted statement by Jack Levy (1988), the democratic peace phenomenon is “as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The idea that democracies do not fight each other can be traced back to Immanuel Kant’s 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace”. Kant’s argument was that policymakers in non-democratic states are more likely to engage in conflicts because they are not constrained by electoral accountability.

*****

The incentives of leaders to maintain a cooperative attitude with their foreign partners differ with the type of political regime. In democracies, leaders who want to stay in power need to behave in the interest of the voters. This observation leads to predictions about the likelihood of conflict in different dyads (between autocracies, between democracies, and between democracies and autocracies). Electoral incentives create accountability and discipline policymakers. This explains the lower probability of conflict observed between democracies: the threat of losing office reduces politicians’ willingness to break peaceful relations with other countries. From this perspective, term limits, which restrict the number of mandates a politician can serve in office, should hinder cooperation, since term limits reduce and can even eliminate the incumbent’s benefits from future periods in office, which reduces voters’ ability to punish leaders who engage in costly conflicts

<http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1602>

[Judi Lynn]

40. Don't recall seeing an actual term limits/no term limits MAP before seeing your link!

http://www.voxeu.org.nyud.net:8090/files/image/zancon1.JPG

Thanks for providing this. Really puts things into focus, ronnie624.

[ronnie624]

46. Thank you for posting the map.

I wanted to, but I don't know how. If you could explain the process I would be most grateful.

[Judi Lynn]

47. If this isn't clearest, I hope someone who can help will post the instructions. Point your mouse at

the image, right click it. A box will drop down, and "properties" will be at the bottom of the list. Left click "properties."

A box will appear, bearing the URL of the image, after the word "address." Copy the URL, then simply paste it onto the post your are typing, making sure there are spaces before and after the address.

When you click "preview" after pasting the image address in your message/post, the image should appear.

Hope I've described the process correctly. I didn't know how to do it for a long time and it drove me wild. I can't remember how I learned, but I'm almost certain it was from seeing someone advise a poster on my first message board.

Thanks, again, for producing that graphic. It explains what a lot of words probably couldn't very easily.

[ronnie624]

49. Excellent! Thank you, so much!

[Judi Lynn]

51. Al-RIGHTY now! Cool. Good deal. Congrats. n/t

[Andrushka]

78. Great map, Judi

Keep up the good work!

[On the Road]

30. I Like a Lot of Chavez's Reforms

but am very nervous about his push for nationalization, removing term limits, and acquiring more executive power.

There is a reasonable case for term limits, but it's not a litmus test issue for me. You also have to consider the alternatives.

In Venezuela's case, removing term limits would mean either:

1) A right-wing candidate like Carmona gets elected and returns the country to Banana Republic status.
2) One of Chavez's lieutenants gets elected. I have heard from Venezuelans that due to security concerns, Chavez has surrounded himself with loyalist ideologues who are in no position to run the country.

Of all the options, Chavez might be preferable until someone of his stature comes along with a better platform.

[IDFbunny]

34. Term limits for Congressmen

Nobody is indispensable, especially congressmen. Even the best of them will be corrupted they become safely entrenched.

[MellowDem]

38. Lots of good reasons for no term limits...

For one, if you are an elected leader with no term limit, you will focus on doing those things that will keep you in power, rather than those things that are best for the country. It's the "neverending campaign" taken to its extreme. You may find yourself doing things in a rather boss-Tweed kind of way. Sure, you are getting elected fair and square, but you're doing it by buying your votes through government programs that are corrupt or innefficient, but keep getting you elected.

Not to mention, and I think this is very important here, Venezuela has no real history of democratic government or institutions. Old beliefs die hard, and whose to say that a people with no experience of democracy will easily recognize the dangers posed to it? But then again, democracy is all in the eye of the beholder, apparently. I personally don't think that just because someone is elected over and over again, they have a legitimate and "healthy" democracy, it may be they are getting elected perfectly legitimately according to those country's laws. Just look at Cuba.

And these systems may seem fine and dandy as long as you have a nice Saint in control, but what happens when someone not so nice gets in power? Every leader has to die. And it makes those transition periods very tense indeed when the only time fresh blood is injected into the body politic is when the previous one dies.

Perhaps a sort of benevelont father figure "democracy" is what works best for some countries, but I would never want it for the US.

[Pavulon]

41. Chavez has mad plots against him, every election

the boogey man comes out. This guy is leaving office dead, by some general who wants hos job or of old age like castro. Probability of peaceful transition of power, NIL. Now he took everyone's shit, and oil tanked what is a petro whore to do?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51B31220090212

[ronnie624]

48. Sarcastic remarks

will never erase the long history of U.S. interventionism in Latin America. Neither will character assassination ever be an effective argument for or against anything - not with people who actually learn and think about the issues, anyway.

[bird gerhl]

43. Venezuela has experienced very rapid growth since the bottom of the recession in 2003...

and grew by 10.3 percent in 2006 and about 8.4 percent last year. The most commonly held view of the current economic expansion is that it is an "oil boom" driven by high oil prices, as in the past, and is headed for a "bust." The coming collapse is seen either as a result of oil prices eventually declining, or the government's mismanagement of economic policy. There is much evidence to contradict this conventional wisdom. . . .

The economy has had continuous rapid growth since the onset of political stability. Real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has grown by 87.3 percent since the bottom of the recession in 2003. It is likely that the government's expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, as well as exchange controls, have contributed to the current economic upswing. Central government spending increased from 21.4 percent of GDP in 1998 to 30 percent in 2006. Real short-term interest rates have been negative throughout all or most of the recovery (depending on the measure—see Figure 4).

The government's revenue increased even faster than spending during this period, from 17.4 to 30 percent of GDP over the same period, leaving the central government with a balanced budget for 2006. The government has planned conservatively with respect to oil prices: for example, for 2007, the budget planned for oil at $29 per barrel, compared to an average price of $65.20 dollars per barrel for Venezuelan crude last year. The government has typically exceeded planned spending as oil prices come in higher than the budgeted price, so it is possible that spending would be reduced if oil prices decline.

However, Venezuela has a large cushion of reserves to draw upon before an oil price decline would begin to squeeze its finances. A decline in oil prices of 20 percent or more could be absorbed from official international reserves, which at $34.3 billion at the end of last year (2007) are enough to pay off all of Venezuela's foreign debt. This does not include other government offshore accounts, which are estimated at as much as $21.5 billion. With its low foreign debt (11.4 percent of GDP), the government could also tap international credit markets in the event of an oil price decline. Furthermore, a collapse of oil prices does not appear to be likely in the foreseeable future. The January 8 short-term outlook of the US Energy Information Agency projects oil prices (WTI crude) at $87.21 per barrel for 2008 and $81.67 for 2009, compared to an average price of $72.3 for 2007. The risks of unanticipated supply shocks – especially in the volatile Middle East - seem to be mostly on the downside, which would increase prices.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_update_2008_02.pdf

[junior college]

50. Chavez is the best thing that ever happened to Venezuela

I was touring down there prior to his rule and the people were totally bummed. When you take a taxi from the airport into Caracas you see mile after mile of shanty towns. And then traveling deeper into country There was horrible poverty and everyone was so excited that Chavez had won the election. Now the country is much better. At least from what I can tell because I haven't been down there since. Viva Chavez!!!

[Eryemil]

52. I would same the same about the other leftist South American leaders

For the first time in my (admittedly short) life I am hopeful about the future of Latin America.

[Judi Lynn]

55. Venezuela’s Referendum: Media’s Double Standards

Published on Saturday, February 14, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Venezuela’s Referendum: Media’s Double Standards

by Steve Rendall & Isabel Macdonald

With Sunday's Venezuelan referendum on term limits, we can expect to hear a lot about Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez’s “plan to become president for life” and its reflection on "Venezuela's battered democracy"--as the New York Times editors put it around the time of Venezuela’s last (failed) term limits referendum.

But when Colombian President Álvaro Uribe's efforts to lift term limits succeeded in 2005, the U.S. media took little notice, and Uribe's reputation as the U.S.'s favorite 'democrat' in the region remained intact.

In Colombia, the lifting of term limits was a big story, in good part because the Colombian courts have sentenced the congress member who cast the deciding vote on the amendment to almost four years in prison for taking bribes from Uribe aides (he knew nothing, of course) in exchange for her vote. And though Uribe supporters are collecting signatures to get him on the ballot for 2010 elections, the bribery affair has caused Colombian courts to raise questions about Uribe’s eligibility.

Yet Uribe’s scandal-ridden term limits law was treated as far less newsworthy by U.S. editors than the Venezuelan government’s moves to put the question of term limits to the popular ballot. A search of “Álvaro Uribe and “term limits” in the Nexis database of U.S. newspapers and wires turns up 60 articles, in contrast to 1003 articles about Chávez and term limits. A spot check reveals that even the articles mentioning Uribe and “term limits” were often about Chávez's efforts to lift term limits, not Uribe's.

Similarly, 286 articles mentioned both Chávez and “president for life,” while only 29 articles mention Uribe and that epithet--but virtually all of those 29 were again referring to Chávez's perceived power grabs, not Uribe's. (One Associated Press story did compare Uribe to Chávez, but didn’t quite apply the term to Uribe: “The wonkish, diminutive but tirelessly tenacious politician , who turned 56 on Friday, has been cagey on that score. Those who oppose the idea say it would put him in league with his continental rival, Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, who has been widely branded autocratic for doing his utmost to try to stay president for life.")

More:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/14-6

[Judi Lynn]

56. FAIR finds editors downplaying Colombia’s abuses, amplifying Venezuela’s

February 2009

FAIR Study: Human Rights Coverage Serving Washington’s Needs
FAIR finds editors downplaying Colombia’s abuses, amplifying Venezuela’s
By Steve Rendall and Daniel Ward and Tess Hall

Any evenhanded comparison of the Colombian and Venezuelan governments’ human rights records would have to note that, though Venezuela’s record is far from perfect, that country is by every measure a safer place than Colombia to live, vote, organize unions and political groups, speak out against the government or practice journalism.

But a new survey by FAIR shows that, over the past 10 years, editors at four leading U.S. newspapers have focused more on purported human rights abuses in Venezuela than in Colombia, and their commentary would suggest that Venezuela’s government has a worse human rights record than Colombia’s. These papers, FAIR found, seem more interested in reinforcing official U.S. policy toward the region than in genuinely supporting the rights of Colombians and Venezuelans.

Colombia’s ‘appalling’ record . . .

Over the past 40 years, Colombia has been known for its rampant human rights violations, untouchable drug cartels, government-linked death squads and violent guerrilla groups. The principal specialist on Colombia for the nonprofit group Human Rights Watch (HRW), Maria McFarland Sanchez-Moreno, told Congress (4/23/07), “Colombia presents the worst human rights and humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere.” She also noted that government-linked paramilitary groups are largely responsible for Colombia’s grim status.

Though Colombia is not the chaotic state it was in the late 1980s and early ‘90s, and violence and repression have not been uniform, HRW’s Americas director José Miguel Vivanco has called Colombia’s current human rights situation “appalling” (Human Rights Watch, 1/22/08).

Killings of civilians by uniformed Colombian military and police totaled 329 in 2007 (Los Angeles Times, 8/21/08), and the country’s unfolding “para-political” scandals have revealed “links between rightist death squads and dozens of officials loyal to President Álvaro Uribe” (Boston Globe, 12/14/06). Everyone from senators to cabinet members to judges have been implicated—even Colombia’s top general, Mario Montoya, whom the Washington Post (9/17/08) described as “a trusted caretaker of the sizable aid package Washington provides Colombia’s army.”

More:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3699

[Tartiflette]

58. Good finds

...they really reinforce Chomsky and Hermann's's view of the media's role in creating a conceived wisdom.

[Judi Lynn]

59. Tartiflette, good to see your comment, and glad to see you've started posting here.

A whole lot of work has been involved in controlling public perception, hasn't it?

Welcome to D.U. :hi:

[fascisthunter]

67. .

[Endangered Specie]

64. Just remember how upset we got at thinking of W trying to end term limits...

we should be *equally* upset about Chav trying the same thing.

[ronnie624]

66. I found this, searching for information.

I hope it hasn't already been posted somewhere. I don't want to step on any toes.


Central to this struggle from its beginning has been, in the words of Chavez, the need for “the sovereign people transform itself into the object and the subject of power. This option is not negotiable for revolutionaries.”

The desperate actions of the Venezuelan oligarchy in response to the initial reforms implemented by the Chavez government, including a failed military coup and bosses lock-out in 2002 and 2003, made it clear that a profound and far-reaching transformation of the entire society from the bottom up was required in order for the process of change to advance.

The actions of the poor and workers in mobilising on a massive scale to defeat the attempts of the elite to overthrow the Chavez government revealed that the motor-force of the process was the people themselves.

In this sense, the revolution has achieved much in the ten years since Chavez was first sworn in as president. Millions of people have become involved in politics for the
first time and are involved in running the social missions (community run social programs) and other organisations from the ground up.

<http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/782/40274>

[Judi Lynn]

69. It's completely useful. So glad you posted it.

People should take the time to read it. From the article, a common sense quote:

The Venezuelan people have the right to determine their political system and decide for themselves who can or cannot stand for election — this right to self-determination is the most relevant democratic principle at stake in the referendum.