Chavez Victorioso!

With approximately 80% of the ballots counted, Chavez appears to have received about 61% of the vote, compared with the 38% received by his opponent Manuel Rosales, current governor of the oil-rich western state of Zulia. This is a decisive victory for Chavez and a resounding endorsement of his policies.

The opposition leader Señor Rosales, a so-called social-democrat, said he would go on "fighting for democracy" - in the streets if necessary. This Orwellian turn of phrase indicates that Señor Rosales does not accept that the will of the majority as expressed through the ballot box constitutes democracy. What Rosales really intends to do is to go on fighting the will of the majority –fighting against democracy. In other words, Rosales is a social democrat in name only.

Officials working with the Rosales campaign maintained that there were electoral irregularities, including the refusal of officials of the National Election Commission at some polls to open ballot boxes for audits, as is required by law. The Rosales campaign also complained that voting booths were kept open past the deadline. Given their shady history, it is not entirely unexpected that the opposition would make such accusations and they have yet to offer any substantive evidence that they contain even the tiniest shred of truth. It is true that polling stations remained open after the deadline, as it is electoral tradition in Venezuela that polls remain open until all in the queue at each station at the time of closing have had a chance to vote. So far there have been no comments on these alleged irregularities by international election observers.

Rosales maintains that the long-term future of the country lies in the implementation of free-market policies and through attracting foreign investment, and in doing so propagates the myth of a “free” market that in reality is anything but free. Rosales promotes the sort of foreign investment that is little more than the legalised pillage of his country’s resources by multinationals – for which he would probably expected to be paid handsomely and from which the average Venezuelan could expect to gain nothing. The foreign investment that Rosales so desperately seeks should be more correctly termed foreign divestment.

Chavez also stands accused by Rosales of having concentrated power in his own hands while at the same time having squandered Venezuela's resources – a charge that is loaded with irony, given that the repulsively wealthy and unbelievably tawdry “miami set”, the descendants of conquistadors and a comparatively small minority of Venezuelan society, have been guilty of concentrating the lion’s share of power in their own hands. This same group of people have also culpable of effectively handing over Venezuelan resources to foreign powers at knock-down prices so that they can feather their own nests, and carry on with their competitive petit- bourgeois displays of affluence.

Continue reading...

Summary only...

Viva Chavez!

Later today, 16 million Venezuelans will be voting in a presidential election that, according to the BBC "offers starkly contrasting visions of their country's future course". Predictably, and somewhat simplistically, the BBC paint this election as a showdown between a socialist who "is seeking a new six-year term to complete his socialist revolution" and a candidate who wants to "keep" a market-based system.

The election could be more accurately be depicted as a battle between those on the one hand who...

• are the poor descendants of indigenous indian populations and slaves
• believe that the resources of a country should benefit all its citizens
• think that the expressed will of the people is highly important
• the constitution of the country is paramount

and those on the other hand who

• are the wealthy, low-class descendants of conquistadors
• believe that the resources of the country belong to their small clique and that they alone have the right to derive benefit
• believe that the results of elections and the provisions of their constitution can be thrown aside whenever their insatiable greed so dictates
• are not beyond organising an anti-democratic coup when it suits them
  

The BBC article states that "whoever wins the election will have to try to unite a deeply divided country or face much political instability". This paints a picture of a country fractured down the middle, which could not be further from the truth. In reality the divide is roughly between 80% of poor Venezuelans and the 20% who have had it too good for too long.

The gulf between the barrios and the trendy "little Miami" suburbs of Caracas will only be bridged if the programme of education and support for the poor in Venezuelan society started by Chavez is allowed to continue. Despite increasing reports of destabilisation tactics employed by the opposition and backed by the United States, support for Chavez remains strong. Assuming that any dirty tricks employed by the opposition do not have a detrimental effect, he should be re-elected with a significant majority - a majority that can look forward to another six years of his bolivarian redress of the hideous imbalances in Venezuelan society.

Continue reading...

Summary only...

The deckchairs have been rearranged.

While on the surface, a Democrat win of the control of both Houses of Congress may seem like a cause for some celebration, it is already clear that for anyone who cares about repairing the tattered remains of hard-won civil rights there is nothing to celebrate. Nothing. Whatsoever. For those who believe that quagmire of bloodshed and suffering that is Iraq is more than a mere "project" that is being badly managed, there is no reason to whoop it up.

Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman, during an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart made it clear that he will not entertain calls for impeachment of G.W. Bush when he said...

"I know half the audience wants us to impeach the President and all that kind of stuff but we're not gonna do that, we're not gonna do that."

Of course, Mr Dean is simply following the lead first established by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker elect of the United States House of Representatives, when she clearly stated during an interview with "60 Minutes" (see video below) that...

"Impeachment is off the table"

and went on to say that...

"that's a pledge"

As of this moment, it seems that the Democrat effort over the next two years will be primarily concentrated on helping the President push through a mass amnesty for illegal immigrants (a move that his own party do not wholeheartedly support) and also on tinkering around with the minimum wage. Unless matters change very radically, they pose about as much threat to the neocon project as domestic cat would pose to a tiger. In other words, it will be business as usual.

There are those who seem to think that the Democrat victory is living proof that the American democracy still works. One highly respected liberal blogger, attorney Glenn Greenwald, provided a prime example of the state of denial brought on by the euphoria of a Democrat victory, when in a recent post he claims that...

"The basic mechanics of American democracy, imperfect and defective though they may be, still function."

Mr. Greenwald then goes on to berate those who are alert to the ways in which their society is being destroyed from within and who do not just shrug their shoulders when their liberties are snatched away from them...

"Chronic defeatists and conspiracy theorists — well-intentioned though they may be — need to re-evaluate their defeatism and conspiracy theories in light of this rather compelling evidence which undermines them."

Try as I might, I see no compelling evidence. The evidence, such as it is, is at best flimsy and at worst utterly specious. Glenn, I sincerely hope that you present evidence far more compelling when you are working on behalf of your clients in court, as the evidence you claim here is compelling would not pass muster in front of any half-awake judge and would be torn to shreds in moments by opposing counsel. Using emotive but trite name-calling does not lend any weight to your insubstantial argument.

The rest of the "evidence" presented by Mr Greenwald is equally fallacious....

"Karl Rove isn't all-powerful; he is a rejected loser."

True. Karl Rove is not all-powerful. However, he is just one cog in a mammoth machine.

"Republicans don't possess the power to dictate the outcome of elections with secret Diebold software."

How do you know they don't? Are you not using the absence of evidence in this one election as evidence of absence? I can say for certain that you are both getting the point and simultaneously missing it when you say "secret". The point is that the electronic voting software is secret. The source code of the software is not open to review.

In theory, anything could be going on inside these machines and you would never know. Yet you appear to be stating that you know for certain that these machines, whether made by Diebold or not, are not used to rig elections. Why? Because the Democrats won this election? Is that what passes for evidence in your neck of the woods? Perhaps you also think that the computer programmer shown giving evidence in the video below was committing perjury?

Many have voiced concerns that voter intimidation and electoral fraud reached an all-time high in this election. Is this really the triumph of democracy you so loudly trumpet?



Then Mr Greenwald goes on piling one spurious argument on top of another...

"they can't magically produce osama bin laden day before the election"

They already did. Have you forgotten the October surprise where the Osama Bin Laden appeared on a video taking responsibility for the September 11 attacks? Have you forgotten the timing of the release of that tape, and the impact it would have had on the re-election chances of George W. Bush? They simply didn't try the same stunt twice.

They don't have the power to snap their fingers and hypnotize zombified Americans by exploiting a New Jersey court ruling on civil unions, or a John Kerry comment, or moronic buzzphrases and slogans designed to hide the truth

Just because the grip of the neocons and their financial backers has not yet totally asphyxiated the wheezing remnant of the American Republic does not mean that it is not vice-like and unrelenting.

It simply isn't the case that we are doomed and destined to lose at the hands of all-powerful, evil forces.

You are right that America is not necessarily so doomed or destined. However, as the Democrats have made it abundantly clear that they will not be rocking the boat then any expectation of positive change is misguided. Given that the Democrats will not be challenging the prevailing neocon orthodoxy or the might of their financial backers, then the whole election aftermath will take on a distinct hue of "steady as she goes". Given that the Democrats are unlikely to change their stance on the unprovoked and unrelenting aggression against a defenseless and broken country that is the Iraq war, then the puppeteers behind the Bush administration can rest easy. As long as the Democrats continue to provide tacit support for the idea of American and British hegemony, then democracy the world-over remains under serious threat.

The sorry reality behind the smokescreen of the Democrat victory is that it will provide little in the way of substantive change where change is badly needed. The deckchairs have been rearranged, but the ailing ship is still ploughing headlong into more turbulent waters - instead of being brought back to a safe harbour as it should be.

Continue reading...

Summary only...

Olbermann - Bush is just making it up as he goes along

The ever eloquent Keith Olbermann delivered yet another well-argued and highly damning criticism of the Bush administration in a pre-election "Special Comment". Click on play button in the video below to watch. For a full transcript, click on the "Continue reading" link below.

TRANSCRIPT

And finally tonight, a special comment about tomorrow's elections.

We are, as every generation, inseparable from our own time. Thus is our perspective inevitably that of the explorer looking into the wrong end of the telescope.

But even accounting for our myopia, it's hard to imagine there have been many elections more important than this one. Certainly not in non-presidential years.

And so we look at the verdict in the trial of Saddam Hussein yesterday and with the very phrase "October, or November, Surprise" now a part of our vernacular, and the chest-thumping coming from so many of the Republican campaigners today, each of us must wonder about the convenience of the timing of his conviction and sentencing.

But let us give history and coincidence the benefit of the doubt — let's say it's just happened that way and for a moment not look into the wrong end of the telescope.

Let's perceive instead the bigger picture.

Saddam Hussein, found guilty in an Iraqi court.

Who can argue against that?

He is officially, what the world always knew he was - a war criminal.

Mr. Bush, was this imprimatur, worth the cost of 2,832 American lives, and thousands more American lives yet to be lost?

Is the conviction of Saddam Hussein the reason you went to war in Iraq?

Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction that did not exist?

Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda that did not exist?

Or did you go to war in Iraq to break the bonds of tyranny there, while installing the mechanisms of tyranny here?

Or did you go to war in Iraq because you felt the need to wreak vengeance against somebody... anybody?

Or did you go to war in Iraq to contain a rogue state which, months earlier, your own administration had declared had been fully contained by sanctions?

Or did you go to war in Iraq to keep gas prices down?

How startling it was, sir, to hear you introduce oil to your own stump speeches over the weekend.

Not four years removed from the most dismissive, the most condescending, the most ridiculing denials of the very hint at, as Mr. Rumsfeld put it, this "nonsense", there you were, campaigning in Colorado, in Nebraska, in Florida, in Kansas - suddenly turning this unpatriotic idea… into a platform plank.

You can imagine a world, you said, in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources. And then you can imagine them saying, "We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following..."

Having frightened us, having bullied us, having lied to us, having ignored and re-written the constitution under our noses, having stayed the course, having denied you've stayed the course, having belittled us about "timelines" but instead extolled "benchmarks", you've now resorted, sir, to this? We must stay in Iraq to save the two-dollar gallon of gas?

Mr. President, there is no other conclusion we can draw as we go to the polls tomorrow.

Sir - you have been making this up as you went along.

This country was founded to prevent anybody from making it up as they went along.

Those vaunted founding fathers of ours have been so quoted-up, that they appear as marble statues, like the chiseled guards of China, or the faces on Mount Rushmore, but in fact they were practical people and the thing they obviously feared most, was a government of men and not laws. They provided the checks and balances for a reason.

No one man could run the government the way he saw fit, unless he, at the least, took into consideration what those he governed saw.

A House of Representatives would be the people's eyes. A senate would be the corrective force on that House. An executive would do the work, and hold the constitution to his chest like his child. And a Supreme Court would oversee it all.

Checks and balances.

Where did all that go, Mr. Bush? And what price did we pay because we have let it go?

Saddam Hussein will get out of Iraq the same way 2,832 Americans have, and thousands more. He'll get out faster than we will.

And if nothing changes tomorrow, you, sir, will be out of the White House long before the rest of us can say we are out of Iraq.

And whose fault is this?

Not truly yours. You took advantage of those of us who were afraid, and those of us who believed unity and nation took precedence over all else. But we let you take that advantage.

And so we let you go to war in Iraq. To oust Saddam, or find non-existent weapons. or avenge 9/11, or fight terrorists who only got there after we did, or as cover to change the fabric of our constitution, or for lower prices at the Texaco. Or… ?

There are still a few hours left, before the polls open, sir, there are many rationalisations still untried.

And whatever your motives of the moment, we the people have, in true good faith and with the genuine patriotism of self-sacrifice, of which you have shown you know nothing, we have let you go on…
Making it up, as you went along.

Un-checked, and un-balanced.

Vote.

Continue reading...

Summary only...

Obsession: FOX News and the war for votes

Newshounds, whose tagline is "We watch FOX so you don't have to" have revealed that Faux News has rearranged its weekend line-up in order to be able to air a terror film "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", presumably to scare the wits of out floating voters and send them to the polls - voting for the ruling junta- the GOP.

Faux News, in announcing that it will air the film, claims that it is a "frightening new documentary by filmmaker Wayne Kopping" and that "what he found, is something FOX News believes every American should know."



The documentary, far from being new, is actually a year old, and will be aired four times over the weekend in what consitutes unabashed electioneering.

Ignoring the fact that a significant proportion of the American public do not believe the official line on the events of 9/11 and that the supposed facts of what happened that day simply fail to add up, an article at the the Faux News site tries to stir up the fear factor using the tried and not so trusted line on 9/11...

"We often hear that 9/11 was a wake-up call for Americans. But have Americans really woken up to the truth of how much radical Islamists want us dead, and the lengths to which they are willing to go to fulfill their mission?"

Back in the real world, outside of the Faux News world of manufactured fear and support for state-sponsored terrorism, this piece would have to be reworded to read...

"We often hear that 9/11 was a wake-up call for Americans. But have Americans really woken up to the truth of how much the neoconservative administration have used 9/11 to turn America into a dictatorship in all but name, and the lengths to which they are willing to go to fulfill their mission?"

This so-called documentary will, of course, work its magic on less news-savvy and may well scare the living daylights out of them. What it won't do, of course, is deliver the true picture.

It won't discuss the relatively powerless nature of radical Islam when compared against the hostile and aggressive policies of the United States, Israel and the United Kingdom. It won't touch on the debate surrounding the inconsistencies of the 9/11 story, and the distinct possibility that the perpetrators are not those who have shouldered the blame so far. It will steer clear of any discussion on the idea that radical behaviour, where it exists, is an merely an effect for which the cause must be identified and dealt with. In other words, it will paint a simplistic and partisan view of affairs with the sole purpose of rallying support for the current administration and its ongoing "war on terra".

Whether or not the target audience for this electioneering blitz possesses the required attention span to sit out a documentary of this length remains to be seen - but the intention of Faux News is crystal clear - bolster the GOP vote by manufacturing fear and in doing so, manufacturing votes.

Continue reading...

Summary only...

Welcome to school - fascist style

Associated Press reported that armed riot police recently carried out a raid on Michigan junior and high schools as part of an exercise. Of course the children were not made aware of what was about to take place and even teachers were given just a few minutes notice.

Marge Bradshaw, a parent with four children attending Godfrey-Lee Schools said "Some of these kids were so scared, they just about wet their pants. I think it's pure wrong that the students and parents were not informed of this".

Judging by the YouTube video below, a similar incident took place in Goose Creek, South Carolina some years ago, where armed police raided a high school with their weapons drawn - ostensibly in search of drugs. I have to say that the time stated on the video is a little suspect, as nobody in their right mind is at school at 6:45am. Judge for yourself.



I really fail to see any purpose in terrorising children in this way, other than to condition them to accept such brutal intrusions into their lives as routine and unavoidable. It really does not matter what rationale you might come up with... a society that has to resort to such tactics in the education of their children let alone accept them as routine on the streets of our cities, is a society that has failed in a fundamental way. It is not, no matter what way you spin it, a hallmark of a successful, thriving and free society.

If you are voting in the elections on November 7th, will you be voting for someone who will only give you more of the same, or even worse? Or will you be voting for someone who will commit to reversing the decimation of your civil liberties and turning back from the headlong march towards total fascism?

Continue reading...

Summary only...

The Stakes

With all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, a recent Republican advertisment goes a long way towards threatening the American people with further terrorist attacks and potential nuclear annihilation... unless...of course.. they cast their vote for the GOP on the 7th of November. The spot, which recalls the infamous "Daisy" advert that was the brainchild of Lyndon Johnson, is a jumbled video montage of assorted terrorist-types vowing to attack the United States, backed by the sound of a ticking time bomb that morphs into a thumping heartbeat and finally becoming an explosion.

The sad truth is that this kind of electoral blackmail will probably work its peculiar charm on that sizeable percentage of the American popuplation who have given up the will to think for themselves, or who will always implicitly believe that the actions of government are by their very nature benign.

Of course it is debatable as to whether a victory for the GOP or for the Democrats will make even the slightest bit of difference, but my suspicion is that a win for the latter would at least bring a halt to the headlong slide into totalitarianism. Of course, for the oligarchs, kleptocrats and plutocrats who pull the strings behind the scenes, it does not matter one bit who the eventual victor is - as the underlying and unwritten agenda will stay unchanged no matter what the outcome.

The Republican blackmail advert is at least truthful in claiming that failure to act will drive the stakes higher than can be imagined. What it fails to be truthful about is the exact nature of those stakes, the true identity of those who pose a very real and present threat to the American people and also the corrective action that needs to be take in order to ensure that the stakes don't become higher.

Continue reading...

Summary only...