So, I am happy to say, he's started 2008 with a fine gesture.

An amnesty of this sort will make it harder for opponents to claim he's unwilling to grant a democratic space to his opponents.

quote:

---

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez granted amnesty Monday to many opponents accused of supporting a failed 2002 coup that briefly drove him from power. Chavez said he signed an amnesty decree that would also pardon others accused of attempting to overthrow his government in recent years.

"It's a matter of turning the page," Chavez said in a telephone call to state television on New Year's Eve. "We would like a country that moves toward peace."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I was critical of Chavez last year for his proposed Constitutional changes, which would have given him unprecedented power.

---

...but then you realized that Venezuela's is an advanced constitutional democracy compared to Canada, a country that has had just three referenda since 1892.

And Chavez does get credit for accepting the results of the referendum.

As we rediscussed ad nauseam, referenda are a deeply flawed method of democratic governance, and should be generally avoided.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
As we rediscussed ad nauseam, referenda are a deeply flawed method of democratic governance, and should be generally avoided.

---

So, you prefer that a government force similar sweeping changes to our central banking system in 1991 and without any political debate at that time?

You'd prefer that Mulroney, after his government was reduced to a phony majority dictatorship in 1988 ram FTA down our throats, even though a majority of Canadians voters voted against Mulroney who promised to break his promise not to open up free trade talks with Warshington?

Ergo, you must have approved of the Liberal phony majority dictatorship forcing NAFTA on our country, even though they made themselves out to be the most virulently anti-Mulroney, anti-FTA and anti-GST opposition party during 1993 elections.

Those sweeping changes to money creation, bank bailouts, and lop-sided trade agreements with the corporatocracy were all enacted by phony majority governments, even though Canadians, who are one of the most well-educated and informed publics in the developed world, voted against those changes to the Bank of Canada Act and stupidest trade deals in the history of the solar system. Admit it, Jeff, successive Canadian plutocracies have been very paternalistic when it comes to overruling democratic choice in this Northern Puerto Rico.

It is sad, that a lot of people still cant recognize the reality of the dictatorship we call the Canadian Govt.

A wolf that say you should call it a sheep, is still a wolf.

Canada & US claim , just like wolves to be democracies. The facts and history beg to differ. It seems like some would rather sleep with the lies and myths , than deal with the realities of the dictatorship that they live under in Canada and US.

[ 02 January 2008: Message edited by: AfroHealer ]

quote:

---

So, you prefer that a government force similar sweeping changes to our central banking system in 1991 and without any political debate at that time?

---

1. Chavez' "reforms", which allowed him to create new provinces and name their governors, suspend civil rights, etc, etc, etc. went far beyond any changes to the banking system in Canada.

2. Why do you claim I "prefer" something I have never discussed at all?

It is perfectly possible to oppose undemocratic actions in Canada, and also undemocratic actions in Venezuela.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

1. Chavez' "reforms", which allowed him to create new provinces and name their governors, suspend civil rights, etc, etc, etc. went far beyond any changes to the banking system in Canada.

---

The changes were to allow the Venezuelan government to direct certain resources toward dealing with terrorism, Jeff. And whether you want to admit it or not, the vicious empire was involved in the military coup plot to raise hell in Venezuela and topple yet another democratically-elected socialist leader in this hemisphere.

Most Canadians don't know anything about sweeping changes to the BoC Act of 1991 for which no parliamentary debate occurred. What Canadians do know is that despite exporting massive amounts of greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels - massive, simply massive amounts of hydroelectric and other sources of power and oceans of timber to the U.S. every year, their municipal governments can't afford to build new hospitals or maintain infrastructure which used to be affordable in this Northern Puerto Rico before Brian Mulroney skulked away without even saying goodbye.

Hugo Chavez was trying to give back that same democratic control of money creation and issuing of credit to the people of Venezuela by democratic referendum. This is the complete opposite of what few Canadians realize even took place in our country in 1991.

quote:

---

Anyone who argues from democratic principle will defend the principle wherever it is violated.

---

I think sometimes we have to group and categorize violations of democratic principles in order to develop a clearer picture of where the spirit of anti-democratic manouvering is emanating from. What we have is a vicious,neutron absorbing nuclear-powered empire affecting democratic outcomes and force of gravity all around it in general. If we were to discuss the earth as a planetary topic of interest, we shouldn't try to remove the earth from an overall context of the solar system with the sun as a source of sustenance for all life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I was critical of Chavez last year for his proposed Constitutional changes, which would have given him unprecedented power.

So, I am happy to say, he's started 2008 with a fine gesture.

An amnesty of this sort will make it harder for opponents to claim he's unwilling to grant a democratic space to his opponents.

chavez amnesty

---

quote:

---

The changes were to allow the Venezuelan government to direct certain resources toward dealing with terrorism, Jeff.

---

Yes, I think that "the war on teerah" certainly required Venezuelans to give up their civil liberties.

But since they refused to do so, I guess you'll be telling us about the threatened coup from now until the "war on terrah" ends.

There have been some brilliant comparisons between the PNAC cabal's war on terror and Orwellian euphemisms. Like, "war is terror"

The Democrats voted last summer to maintain the infamous School of the Americas(WHINSEC), the world's foremost school for the export of torture and terror.

quote:

---

AH:
Canada & US claim , just like wolves to be democracies. The facts and history beg to differ.

---

I think that that would depend on how one defines democracy.

I think that what we have may be called a democratic plutocracy. The democratic framework is there, but the real deciding factor is wealth with competing areas of wealth winning or losing power depending on who can buy a plurality of votes using their control of media, education and other institutions.

Of course one could also argue that decisions made by power derived from a plurality rather than a majority is not all that democratic.

I don't think that any society that has a wide disparity in wealth can be very democratic.

quote:

---

JH:
I was critical of Chavez last year for his proposed Constitutional changes, which would have given him unprecedented power.

So, I am happy to say, he's started 2008 with a fine gesture.

An amnesty of this sort will make it harder for opponents to claim he's unwilling to grant a democratic space to his opponents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
It is perfectly possible to oppose undemocratic actions in Canada, and also undemocratic actions in Venezuela.

---

But not "thoroughly refuted" in Venezuela, where people who SUPPORTED Chavez for years, nonetheless voted against the Constitutional Coup.

On babble, as we all know, there is a coterie of people who cannot, no matter what, admit that Castro or Chavez has ever done anything wrong.

They can insist all they like, but it isn't "refutation". It's "drowning out".

Revolutions don't need a Caesar figure. When one person makes all decisions, democracy no longer exists and the personal development which comes with democratic activity disappears. "All HAIL the Great Leader!" is not democratic discussion, it is capitulation and toadyism.

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: jeff house ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
A coup activist pardons another coup activist.

---

"To vote ‘yes', is a vote for Chavez and the revolution, to vote ‘No' is a vote for Bush." -- Hugo Chavez, December 1 2007

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
But not "thoroughly refuted" in Venezuela, where people who SUPPORTED Chavez for years, nonetheless voted against the Constitutional Coup.

---

The Yes vote there received a larger percentage of support than either of Canada's phony majority dictatorships did in 1988 and 1993 general elections.

But we still had FTA and NAFTA and GST rammed down our collective throats, didn't we?

And don't forget to ask the average Canadian on the street what their opinions were on the big bank heist of 1991 to privatize the remainder of money creation and issuing of credit in this country. Because in Venezuela, a similar decision that would have affected everyone's lives in that country was actually put to a national referendum not decided on in closed door backroom meetings and without allowing political debate or citizens forums in Canada.

And then the R's had to resort to stealing an election again in 2004 with several million American citizens barred from voting. There are pro democracy movements in the USSA, too.

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Comparing the two is yet another false dicotomy.

---

When you don't know what a word means, type it into Google with 'define:' prefixed to it: define:Dichotomy

Or just use wikipedia: Dichotomy

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
"To vote ‘yes', is a vote for Chavez and the revolution, to vote ‘No' is a vote for Bush." -- Hugo Chavez, December 1 2007

Alas the power of the false dichotomy to scuttle meaningful debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
How would you have framed the debate meaningfully?

---

The obvious answer is to argue over what result is best for Venezuela.

quote:

---

To vote ‘yes', is a vote for Chavez and the revolution, to vote ‘No' is a vote for Bush."

---

This is exactly the way Bush frames things: "You are either with us, or the terrorists."

In Bush's case, that means that anyone concerned about waterboarding gets slimed as pro-terrorist.

In Chavez's case, he pretends that the revolution is IDENTICAL to himself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
I'm not saying people weren't framing it that way. Many certainly were. I'm just dismayed by flawed rhetoric that undermines the real discussion.

---

There were illegal No-side campaigns which they weren't able stop before the referendum. Some rural Venezuelans fully believed the ammendments would allow the government to confiscate their homes and take away their children.

So why aren't foreign governments allowed to pour money into the coffers of political opposition groups (never mind anti-government right-wing militia groups as per 1980's Afghanistan&Pakistan) in the U.S.?

quote:

---

Diagnosis of the Defeat

Whenever the issue of a socialist transformation is put at the top of a governmental agenda, as Chavez did in these constitutional changes, all the forces of right-wing reaction and their (‘progressive’) middle class followers unite forces and forget their usual partisan bickering. Chavez’ popular supporters and organizers faced a vast array of adversaries each with powerful levers of power. They included:

1) numerous agencies of the US government (CIA, AID, NED and the Embassy’s political officers), their subcontracted ‘assets’ (NGO’s, student recruitment and indoctrinations programs, newspaper editors and mass media advertisers), the US multi-nationals and the Chamber of Commerce (paying for anti-referendum ads, propaganda and street action);

2) the major Venezuelan business associations FEDECAMARAS, Chambers of Commerce and wholesale/retailers who poured millions of dollars into the campaign, encouraged capital flight and promoted hoarding, black market activity to bring about shortages of basic food-stuffs in popular retail markets; . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
That's why I support them, and it.

---

I'm sure there were those in the USSR who thought Moscow's shadow government was completely innocent of political interference in the satellite nations as well, Jeff. But we do appreciate your comments.

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

I'm sure there were those in the USSR who thought Mowscow's shadow government was completely innocent of political interference in the satellite nations as well,

---

Yes, that was the Official Line of the Communist Party, and you are right to point out its mendaciousness.

In the case of Venezuela, it is, of course, not a "satellite nation". At the same time, there is, no doubt, improper US interference there.

However, just as the threat of "terrorism" does not justify the civil liberties violations of George W. Bush, neither does the threat of U.S. interference require a huge extension of power for Chavez.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
In the case of Venezuela, it is, of course, not a "satellite nation". At the same time, there is, no doubt, improper US interference there.

---

Well you're half right. It really is improper of the American CIA to not only interfere in other countries' politics, it's illegal for the CIA and its affiliated NGO's to foment and support military coups in Venezuela in 2002 as well as invading Haiti in 2004 to remove a democratically elected leader there as well. And it is no coincidence that both Aristide and Chavez were socialist leaders at the same time they were targeted for "removal" from power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
However, just as the threat of "terrorism" does not justify the civil liberties violations of George W. Bush, neither does the threat of U.S. interference require a huge extension of power for Chavez.

---

That's easy for Jeff to say

This web documentary comes highly recommended as well, Jeff House

The War on Democracy(YouTube) John Pilger Part 1of10

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:

When you don't know what a word means, type it into Google with 'define:' prefixed to it: define ichotomy

Or just use wikipedia: Dichotomy

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

---

It now appears that whatever the risk of a coup, the need for dictatorial powers was exaggerated.

I will resist the temptation to respond more fully to "Fidel", who always thinks Cuban dictatorship is either 1) NECESSARY because of the evil gringos trying to kill Lord Castro, or 2) Not dictatorship AT ALL, rather the embodiment of liberty.

And the purpose of the referendum was about a lot more than simply grabbing power to thwart a coup. None of which were particularly unheard of in a modern democracy.

And assuming that one month without a coup is definite proof that none were planned and none will ever occur, it could very well be that Chavez was merly mistaken in his beliefs and not actually an evil dictatorial genius, hell bent on enslaving the southern hemisphere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
It's now been a month since Chavez desperately had to have near dictatorial powers to prevent an IMMINENT coup.

It now appears that whatever the risk of a coup, the need for dictatorial powers was exaggerated.

---

Rather the CIA's campaign for political interference in the referendum lowered support for the Yes side just enough to defeat the Yes-side by a narrow margin. As I we were saying before, our own phony majority dictators don't even have to worry about garnering 49% of votes cast in general elections where half the eligible doesn't bother to show up at the polls. Venezuela's is an advanced constitutional democracy with proportional voting. Our own stoogeocrats should seize the opportunity to legitimize their own governments with a fair voting system. And never mind the piddling three national referenda they've entrusted Canadians with since 1898!

quote:

---

I will resist the temptation to respond more fully to "Fidel", who always thinks Cuban dictatorship is either 1) NECESSARY because of the evil gringos trying to kill Lord Castro, or 2) Not dictatorship AT ALL, rather the embodiment of liberty.

---