Chavez says crisis-hit U.S. needs new constitution

[NeoConsSuck]

Source: Reuters.com

LISBON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday it was the capitalist system that had caused the financial crisis in the United States and the country should come up with a new constitution.

Speaking to reporters in Lisbon on the last leg of a tour that included visits to China and Russia, he said: "I think the United States should start a constituent process to create a constituent assembly, a new truly democratic model."

A constituent assembly is a body elected to draft and sometimes adopt a new constitution.

"It was capitalism that caused the ruin" in the United States, said Chavez, who is one of Washington's fiercest critics, calling the financial crunch "the worst financial crisis in history".

"Let the U.S. empire end and let a great nation and great republic rise from the ruin ... It's time to shout 'Liberty!' again in the United States," Chavez said, calling for a new government to be free of the "dictatorship of the elite" such as big banks and corporations.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLR19755520080927

[dkofos]

1. Sorry Hugo. We don't need a new constitution, WE NEED LEADERS WHO UNDERSTAND THE ONE WE HAVE.

[UpInArms]

3. a k&r for this thread because of your excellent response!

:kick:

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

15. The one our "government" allowed a moran dictator to wipe his ass with?

Hugo has a point.

Fire 'em all and start over fresh. Put WE THE PEOPLE back into the equation and take the corporations OUT.

[Celtic_88]

66. Hugo has a point.

I agree . I have said for Years, get them all out and start a
fresh. Limit the time they can run and cut the pay on the days
they are no shows.

[Laelth]

128. I have sworn to uphold the Constitution, but ...

I must admit our republic is in danger of becoming a mere oligarchy. On that point, Chavez is right. However, the Constitution isn't our problem. It's the obscene influence of the rich and the powerful (exerted through television, principally) that is endangering our democracy.

-Laelth

[tama]

199. Danger of becoming?

Yesterdays news. US republic is nothing but plutocratic oligarchy, certainly not a democracy.

[midnight]

122. Why did our "government" allow bush to wipe his ass with the

consitution.

[Unvanguard]

18. What, a power grab by an elite looking for a centralized state to counter grassroots democracy?

The rule of law is to be defended, yes. The specific words of our constitutional document (when attempts are made to change them legally and democratically), not necessarily.

[texanshatingbush]

24. Absolutely spot-on, dkofos!!!! n/t

[Cleita]

27. At least those who bother to read it and follow it's rules.

I do agree with Chavez though that we need some new amendments to fix this catasrophe that was brought down on us, but not the whole Constitution.

[knixphan]

227. seconded.

[Frisbee]

37. Exactly right...

the one we have is just fine, thank-you. I just needs to come out of mothballs. I know a certain Constitutional scholar who just may do that in a few months.

[Igel]

184. Please.

Scholars are defined by scholarship.

Scholarship that sits in a desk drawer isn't, but we haven't even heard a claim of that.

There's a case review to his credit, one on a controversial case, but a review that was non-controversial. I have some book reviews and an article or two in print, all of which evinced decidedly biased judgments; by that token, I'm a great scholar of contoversial views. By every other measure of scholarship, I'm an under-performing grad student pointing out the obvious when the data entail it.

We're talking about a lecturer who turned down tenure-track positions in favor of continued lecturerships, presumably because of the one added requirement: scholarship. Doesn't mean he won't be a great president. Does mean he's no more a scholar than he is a forensic pathologist or gifted translator of Vedic literature.

[progressive_realist]

42. Amen to that.

Our Constitution is one of the things that is truly great about our country. No way in hell we should scrap it.

[harun]

62. I think they understand it, they just don't think it applies to them

Nor do they think it is really there to help the average Joe. They look at it as the guardian of the super rich elite. Which is what they use it for.

[The Backlash Cometh]

63. No kidding. If they didn't respect the first one, they wouldn't respect the next one.

[barbtries]

65. thank you

if our leaders paid any attention to our present constitution we'd be much better off.

[cstanleytech]

84. Agreed.

[DRoseDARs]

85. Indeed, our constitution has nothing to do with our economic system.

Chavez might try reading what a real constitution is some time; ours is organic and works just fine thank you.

[tama]

200. How can you change it?

Other really democratic American countries hold constitutional referendums and have procedures for wide participation in amending and changing constitution. In US, at least of federal level, direct and participatory democracy is considered "mob rule". Well, who's ruling US if not a mafia of corporate fascist and corporate whores?

[olddad56]

93. NO, we no longer have one, it was superseded by the Patriot Act...

We don't need a new one, the old one would do just fine, but our current administration isn't legally bound by it.

They can invade other countries, murder, maim, and torture it's citizens, spy and even open fire on it;s own citizens and there is nothing you can legally do about. They can even take you to jail in the middle of the night, seize your assets, and leave you in jail indefinitely without charging you with a crime or allowing you access to an Attorney.

[Confusious]

117. I think we need one

I have more choices in breakfast cereal then I do political parties. We need someone to watch over the politicians, because they can't do it themselves. A woman's right to choose, and our right to privacy, should be in there loud and clear, no arguments from fascists like scalia or bush saying it not in there. I've got a long list of things.

[minfellman]

131. chavez

Of course as much as he is unpopular here in the homeland he is absolutely correct. The whole history of the USA has been shaped by a minority due to the mistake of giving each sate two senators regardless of the population. It wasn't much liked at the time but was done in the name of expediency
to get the deal done. This is how the South hung on to slavery and then Jim Crow for many years. Not only is there the filibuster, there is the hold. For years the South controlled the committees through seniority. It took one hundred years to get a civil rights law enacted. We have the same situation today where a handful of Senators can control the Senate. In the Constitution it says this can't be changed by amendment. What we need is a new Constitution to deal with the realities of the large multinational corporations and baking system or it will just be a "god-dam piece of paper.
Probably ain't gonna happen because Americans are brainwashed that this deal worked out in 90 days has become "sacred". Screw that.

[Bill McBlueState]

162. I agree with almost everything

but can you cite the part of the Constitution that says the makeup of the Senate can't be changed by amendment?

[happyslug]

249. Last Clause in Article V of the US Constitution

"and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlev.html

That goes back to the Article of Confederation, each state had one vote no matter how many members it sent to Congress:

"In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote." Article V, Third Paragraph
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article5

[blondeatlast]

121. You said it perfectly. nt

[tazkcmo]

123. yup

Nothing wrong with the one we have if it's enforced.

[tama]

198. Sorry but

US Constitution is broken, it hasn't been able to stop usurpers declaring "executive power" overriding constitution, making supreme court rubber stamp and Congress clan of corporate whores etc. corruption. Balance of powers that the Constitution aimed for has ceased to be functional, so no "leaders who understand" suffice. Problem is rather the leaders who understand it well enough to circumvent it, so that "we the people" is not the ruler, but bunch of rich and richer guys.

When Gödel moved to US and Einstein took him to apply for citizenship, Gödel the impeccaple logician noted that there was a fatal flaw in US constitution. Einstein adviced Gödel to keep his mouth shot and not talk about that to immigration officials, so we don't know what was the flaw that Gödel saw.

[msongs]

2. che guevara was a sociopathic serial killer. lol nt

[RC]

4. And our 'Leaders' aren't?

[jlacivita]

113. our leaders aside, che really was a nut-job

he's responsible for killing tons of prisoners without any authority to do so. He wasn't even cuban and after the cuban revolution he went around to other countries trying to incite violence were there was none.

I'm not against the cuban revolution, but che is hardly a good poster boy for it.

[jrockford]

33. a sociopathic serial killer eh? Yeah.... read a book. nt

[bitchkitty]

110. lol is right, but you should have used a sarcasm icon. n/t

[jlacivita]

111. yeah, i love that he's become an icon of the capitalist system by being on so many T-shirts...

serves him right.

[OKNancy]

5. whatever

[Itchinjim]

6. Shut up Hugo.

[texastoast]

7. Wrong, Hugo

It was capitalists wanting the socialist safety net.

And our Constitution is just fine as long as we follow it. That's our problem. Neocons thumbing their noses at our Constitution and the people not taking to the streets to stop it.

[bitchkitty]

8. Time to shout Liberty -

I wish. It won't happen here, not for a long time. When all of us are starving, or doing God-knows-what to care for ourselves and our families, then maybe. Maybe.

[Pavulon]

9. Like those on the hillsides around caracas...(nt

[bitchkitty]

11. Exactly like they were before Chavez gave them hope. n/t

[Pavulon]

20. Cant eat hope, and hope does not flush

sewage away. Poverty unlike anything in the US exists in LA. Not picking on Venezuela only, but the poverty there is more profound than here.

[bitchkitty]

35. And before Chavez? I'm sure that

your right wing darlings took care of the poor. Why, before Chavez, they didn't have to stress themselves with things like health care or education - they were just happy little campesinos playing guitar in thankful joy that they got to be under the heel of a US-backed criminal enterprise. Is that your position?

[Pavulon]

44. Hugo the coup leader then elected official

is just sending loads of money to different people. In 5 years I have been visiting the hills still seem to have poor people there.

What enterprise did we back?

[bitchkitty]

51. The key word being ELECTED. n/t

[EFerrari]

54. You know better than this. And, btw, Chavez's career took off when

he went on national television and took responsibility for that coup. When was the last time any of us have seen a leader do something like that?

[bitchkitty]

60. I don't know why I bother with you, but for old time's sake:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0304-20.htm

<snip>As “US Intervention in Venezuela” makes clear, the Administration’s concerns about Venezuela are not fundamentally about these issues but relate to a deeper concern about the erosion of support for the neoliberal “free market” system promoted by the US government in Latin America for decades. The Chávez government is currently leading one of the fastest growing economies in the region, bringing down unemployment through the use of a dynamic set of policies that combine the assets of the private sector with, strategic government investment in specific industries, and incentives for cooperatives and small and local businesses.

Most importantly, the Chávez administration is funneling billions of dollars of the country’s oil wealth into social programs for the poor. These programs have succeeded in eradicating illiteracy in Venezuela; vastly increasing school enrollment; providing subsidized food and housing to the poor; and implementing a national system of preventative, community-based health care. Call it the threat of a good example! </snip>

[Pavulon]

130. That is bullshit. There is illeteracy and

abject poverty around caracas on on the road to coro. I have seen it. There are places in europe and asia i have visited where I could just take up residence and live a normal happy life. Caracas is not one of those places, Tokyo, Geneva, Innsbruck, or Munich are.

I promise you if you broke your leg or had a dive injury you would damn well want to evac to the US for medical care if your like depended on it.

And to back up my opinion here is some data provided by a third party...
(40 page call on hugo's bullshit.)
http://repec.wesleyan.edu/pdf/frrodriguez/2006025_rodriguez.pdf

[bitchkitty]

139. So you're telling me that Hugo Chavez caused

the poverty in Caracas? That he's done nothing to alleviate it?

[Pavulon]

141. Lied about it to grandstand

and uses oil money to his own means political and personal. You will never guess what his brother is up to.. and do you thing his income has risen or fallen??

Of course he did not create the poverty, you think he has two fishes and five loaves?

[bitchkitty]

151. Lied about it?

How so? He said there was no poverty? Your statement sounds like a lie, unless of course you have something to back it up?

Your hatred for Chavez is pathological. There is no reason behind it.

[Pavulon]

160. See the LINK (or EMPIRICAL DATA)

I posted. They provided numbers that back up their POSITION, not just a psychological assessment of my post.

[bitchkitty]

166. I don't want to download your pdf.

Is that all you have? I mean surely, you have a source that won't involve downloading anything?

[Pavulon]

167. Not mine, University content

PDF can be viewed in your browser, but is the standard for publishing content to the web. If you refuse to read content in acrobat format you are pretty much shit out of luck, as everyone uses it.

The data backs up my position, Hugo lied. Pretty standard for politicians.

All internet content is "downloaded" ascii text on a page, to embedded media is assembled by your system locally for you to view.

[ronnie624]

176. Can you at least post an excerpt

from the portion that supports your claim?

Personally, I don't believe you have even read the document yourself, and if you did take the time to read it, I don't believe you would understand it.

[Pavulon]

179. Nice,

so I am unable to understand a simple document that presents data and supports it with statistical data. Vs people who are unwiling to read it.

40 pages with a brief summary. Literacy program was not as effective as claimed and stratification (possibly intentional) of sampling in initial numbers caused numbers to misrepresent the reality on the ground.

It also makes clear he overstated the effectiveness overall. But he is a politician and that is what they do.

[ronnie624]

190. My adobe reader won't work for some reason.

I think you deliberately avoid readily accessible sources of information in order to reduce the possibility of getting called posting bullshit. You post links to questionable sources of information in Spanish, you attempt to sidetrack with irrelevancies, you refuse to discuss detailed analysis with Peace Patriot and Judi Lynn, and instead resort to attempted character assassination of Chavez. You absolutely will not post excerpts from information sources that you say support your claims, leaving it up to other posters to read through your material, and attempt to disprove your assertions.

You're a very skilled and sneaky propagandist, but the points above, along with your atrocious grammar and syntax lead me to question your ability to understand complex adult concepts.

[Pavulon]

191. I think

you are full of shit. Your broken software has jack to do with the link that I am able to open in firefox, IE, and Safari.

The document I linked to is hosted by an accredited university and written by people who backed their data up with sample data.

That is rock fucking solid.

So we have a poster who does not want to download it and one who says they cant. NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM.

I link to ENGLISH sources and have toed up with with the chavistas you mention. I agree and disagree with them in a RESPECTFUL tone.

Scum of the internet attack grammar and syntax. Stratification in statistical analysis is a pretty adult topic.

[ronnie624]

192. Still no excerpts from your source?

A respectful argument, is addressing the issues under discussion and composing a logical, readable rebuttal, without invoking negative symbolism and character assassination.

You disseminate crude propaganda.

[Pavulon]

193. PDF format is generally done to protect content.

4 paragraphs for 40 pages.. And you cant figure out how to use acrobat. Jesus Christ. Your attack on syntax and grammar is pretty much accepted as a tactic used by internet doofuses.

http://repec.wesleyan.edu/pdf/frrodriguez/2006025_rodriguez.pdf

This is a LARGE document and can not be summed up in a few sentences.

Freed from Illiteracy?
A Closer Look at Venezuela’s Robinson Literacy Campaign*
Daniel Ortega
Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administración
Francisco Rodríguez
Wesleyan University
Edward Miguel
University of California, Berkeley and NBER
October 2006

We evaluate the success of the Venezuelan government’s latest nationwide
literacy program, Misión Robinson, using official Venezuelan
government survey data. Controlling for existing trends in literacy
rates by age groups over the period 1975 to 2005,

This paper has tried to establish three things. The first is that Venezuela is
currently very far from eradicating illiteracy. According to the government’s own
Household Surveys, 1 million Venezuelans claimed not to know how to read and
write at the end of 2005, only slightly less than the 1.1 million at the start of 2003.
The possibility that the Robinson program led some newly semi-literate individuals
to claim they are literate in surveys means that even these very small gains might be
overstated.
The second is that the implementation of Misión Robinson coincided with at
most a moderate reduction in Venezuelan illiteracy. Most program impact estimates
represent quantitatively small and rarely statistically significant effects of Robinson,
with some point estimates are actually negative. Even the most favourable estimates
to Misión Robinson – such as, for example, the lagged specifications of the state
panel regressions in Table 5 – imply quantitatively minor effects (in that case, an
increase in literacy of 51,136 persons).
The third fact is that these very small program impacts appear to have been
purchased at a very high cost for Venezuelan taxpayers. Even if we assume that all of
the literacy gains observed between the first semester of 2003 and the second
semester of 2005 were achieved as a result of Misión Robinson, and this is likely to
seriously overestimate program effects given the strong pre-existing trends, each
22
trainer would have led only one additional person to become literate on average,
hardly a rousing success. With more realistic program impact estimates, the ratio
becomes much less favorable for the program.



PLEASE READ THE SOURCE.

[reorg]

219. the problem with bookkeepers evaluating things they don't understand

is that they will always tend to claim "government waste"! "Decrease spending"!

The authors did not bother to study the actual literacy campaign, and apparently did not question a single participating teacher.

So, when more than a million participate, nobody learned a thing? A teacher, of groups with less then ten, cannot evaluate whether a course has been successful?

But an economics professor a few thousand miles away can, based on numbers in a "household survey"?

That is ridiculous on its face.

[Pavulon]

220. Read up..IESA in in VZ..

I see people love dismissing sources.

[reorg]

225. Maybe you should read the sources you quote

before pimping them out as "objective" and "scientific"?

Your paper is interesting only insofar as it illustrates how smear campaigns are done in "academic" fashion. If people are looking for information on the literacy campaign, they should not bother to look at that text.

[Pavulon]

234. I am sure 3 people

from different universities wish to ruin their careers by posting bad data?

Can you actually address content?

[ronnie624]

229. He didn't copy his excerpt from the document he linked to.

I saw exactly the same thing on two different websites linked from Google. His claim to have read the document is fraudulent.

Incidentally, when I clicked on his link, my browser opened 317 tabs before I finally stopped it and closed them all, counting each one. For what reason would a 40 page PDF need 317 tabs?

[Pavulon]

233. You saying I rickrolled you shitbird?

The link is hosted by a UNIVERSITY site. Your browser is obviously as screwed up as your thought process.

Report it to the moderators. That is a serious accusation.

[ronnie624]

252. I make no accusation against you.

It is your judgment I distrust, not necessarily your intentions.

[iverglas]

241. google's cached html version

Take a phrase quoted from the document -- "We evaluate the success of the Venezuelan government’s latest nationwide" -- and google.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:IV9lNvfumfMJ:frrodriguez.web.wesleyan.edu/docs/working_papers/Freed_from_Illiteracy.pdf+We+evaluate+the+success+of+the+Venezuelan+government%E2%80%99s+latest+nationwide%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca

The tables themselves cannot be read this way, of course.

From glancing at it, I'd say that someone citing/relying on it would need a pretty good grasp of statistical methods in order to evaluate the work. And if I were citing/relying on it myself, I'd want to be able to evaluate it first.

I found this passage quoted by Pavulon (always glad to see a Guns forum regular stepping out into the air) interesting (I don't see it in that cached version):

This paper has tried to establish three things. The first is that Venezuela is currently very far from eradicating illiteracy. ... The second is that the implementation of Misión Robinson coincided with at most a moderate reduction in Venezuelan illiteracy. ... The third fact is that these very small program impacts appear to have been purchased at a very high cost for Venezuelan taxpayers.

Evaluations I'm familiar with don't actually try to establish anything. They analyze data, and draw conclusions.

After all, this is supposed to be "raw sourced data", so what's up?


Anyhow, do read post 318, I think it is (I've replied to it; could be 319).

[bitchkitty]

177. Can you explain the source -

like who wrote it, their credentials, etc...

[Pavulon]

181. Working paper, co authored

by three academics one from Wesleyan, one from UC Berkley, and one from IESA. They present data, review it, and draw conclusions based on basic statictical analysis.

Not an enthralling read. Not a political document and does not condemn the government. Just examines the data.

[reorg]

221. Rodriguez is an assistant professor of economics in the USA

and had been employed in the early 2000 by the Venezuelan state assembly. There was a note on his web page ono why he was fired, but I cannot find it anymore.

Recent commentary (surprise, surprise):

"Venezuela's Empty Revolution," International Herald Tribune 2/27/07

"The Emperor Wants New Clothes," Economic and Political Weekly 12/1/07

"Economic Policies of the New Radical Left Will Fail," Americas Quarterly 8/07


http://frrodriguez.web.wesleyan.edu/index.html

[bitchkitty]

224. Interesting - I notice that

it was published by the Council on Foreign Relations. No agenda there, I'm sure.... :eyes:

[Pavulon]

235. RAW SOUCED DATA.!

3 names, 1 from UC Berk. Fucking character assassins refuse to address content at ALL.

At least it in not HRW, they you can dismiss it out of hand.

[reorg]

218. the data doesn't back up anything

This little paper was produced by one Francisco Rodriguez, economics professor in the USA who has a beef with Chavez and carries out his diatribe e.g. in "Foreign Affairs" ("An Empty Revolution: The Unfulfilled Promises of Hugo Chávez," Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008).

In the paper, ironically named "A Closer Look at Venezuela’s Robinson Literacy Campaign", there is no discussion on the campaign itself, the methods applied, how many were reached with what success and so on. Which is understandable, since as an economics professor Rodriguez is clearly not qualified to evaluate literacy campaigns. The paper is a statistical exercise, with numbers from "The National Statistical Institute’s (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE) Household Survey.

Now - I do not know how the INE yearly surveys the households. Do they really visit every household in Venezuela every year in order to gather their data? Where I live, and that would be a much more developed environment, it is not done this way. We've had exactly one comprehensive census in fifty years (some time in the eighties). So, I suppose, there must be estimates involved in reaching the numbers?

The paper says on page 8 that in order to get the numbers on literacy, the INE "interviewers ask respondents the following question: “Does this family member know how to read and write?” (“¿Sabe leer y escribir?”) The question is asked to the person or persons present at the moment of the interview about all household members."

On this basis only, Rodriguez claims that literacy rates were not significantly reduced as a result from the Robinson Literacy Campaign.

I find that highly dubious, so I looked a little around and guess what I found?

Another PDF: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_research_2008_03.pdf

"An Empty Research Agenda: The Creation of Myths About Contemporary Venezuela".

Mark Weisbrot (Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC) mentions in this Issue Brief from March 2008 (on pp 6f) the dubious methods of Rodriguez:

"The main problem (...) is that it is based on a Household Survey that was not designed to measure literacy. The survey simply asks whoever is present at the time of the interview about another family member: "Does this family member know how to read or write?" A
respondent may answer "yes" to the question, knowing that her brother or father can write his name. At the end of a literacy program, however, the person may have considerably improved reading skills, but would still show up in the survey as the same response. There are probably millions of functionally illiterate people who would not be captured as illiterate at the starting point by this crude survey. To measure the results of Mision Robinson, one would need some before-and-after test for the participants.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research used the Household Survey data to look at whether the statistical tests cited above by Rodriguez actually showed, even with this crude data, that there was "little evidence that the program had any statistically distinguishable effect on Venezuelan literacy." We found that the statistically insignificant results found by Ortega and Rodriguez were not robust and appeared to be an artifact of the specification of the tests that they used; and that under other reasonable specifications, there was a statistically significant effect of the program that was visible in the household data.

In sum, it may well be that the government exaggerated the results of the literacy campaign, but neither the Household Survey itself, nor Ortega and Rodriguez's statistical analysis of it, provides much evidence regarding this question."

[iverglas]

239. thank you very much for that

Gut feeling always tells me that sort of thing is out there somewhere, in situations like this, and I'm very grateful when someone else knows where to look and reports back so efficiently and effectively.

[Pavulon]

240. Ok, where is the data bad? CEPR?

CEPR is not an unbiased source. They are chasing a working paper from 3 academics. Frankel is not quite a neutral party.

That document does not point by point address the paper I posted. It talks about sewage, gdp, and housing, but does not post data that directly undermines the 3 positions of my pdf.

sample sizes are reasonable and the data comes FROM THE GOVERNMENT. The stratification of the original numbers (ie loading up samples to skew outcome) is not addressed.

See pages 30 - 42 where every position is SOURCED.

Now we have two sources that disagree. One a think tank and one published by 2 economists and a statistician.

Simply, you think inveteracy is gone in Venezuela? I don't need a guy from UC Berkley to answer that one. Been there setting up machines.

[iverglas]

242. interesting attempted dichotomy

Now we have two sources that disagree. One a think tank and one published by 2 economists and a statistician.

Actually, one is published by a think tank and written by two economists and a statistican, and the other is published by a think tank and written by an economist.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/mark-weisbrot/

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000), and has written numerous research papers on economic policy.

You seem to have carefully selected an apple from the available fruit to compare to an orange, when there was an apple sitting in front of your face.


Simply, you think inveteracy is gone in Venezuela?

Assuming you meant "illiteracy" (doncha just love that Freud?), may I just ask: why do you ask?

Are you speaking to someone who asserted that illiteracy was gone in Venezuela -- or do you have some other reason for believing/asserting that she makes that claim?

Just wondering, as usual.

[Pavulon]

243. Hugo claim

addressed in the pdf I posted. Hopefully you will not use a grammar error to try and make a point...

CEPR is a 'wing' tank. IE non neutral source. The document clearly posted assertions and then used published, referenced data to back it up. I had to sit through a year of that shit (stats) and am no expert but can see deceptive work. The paper is not attempting to be deceptive.

[iverglas]

245. good god

CEPR is a 'wing' tank. IE non neutral source.

And the paper that you are so doggedly relying on was published by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Again, pick your fruit and stick with it, if you would. Apples to apples, oranges to oranges.

Which one would I expect to see a Democrat looking to for analysis?


I had to sit through a year of that shit (stats) and am no expert but can see deceptive work. The paper is not attempting to be deceptive.

Well, I didn't do much more myself.

But I'm perfectly able to see that if the data being analyzed is not meaningful, the analysis won't be worth shit.

And I think the analysis of the data analysis quoted here demonstrates pretty thoroughly that the data -- unreliable third-party reporting, using an essentially meaningless survey question that fails to collect the very information needed, gradations of literacy -- wasn't worth shit to start with.

[Pavulon]

246. No illiteracy in VZ

then. I will not question the line. I will not post ungood content and will never question hugo's infinite wisdom...

They are 100 percent literate. Lets say it together to get a good echo.

There are dozens of pages on data sourced from different locations.

There is far more than a QA session sourced.

[iverglas]

250. no honesty in your post

then.


No surprise

there.


If you imagine that I am Hugo Chavez, you are going to be sorely disappointed some day.

I don't even think that anyone else here is Hugo Chavez ...



(typo fixed)

[reorg]

253. You still did not read the paper, did you?

Rodriguez is an honest cheat. He does not lie. He is just a petty little thimblerigger.

I quoted to you how he exactly knows and admits on page 8 that the interview question used to gather the "raw data" is very simple and crude ("Can your uncle read and write, yes or no? ... asked to the person or persons present at the moment of the interview about all household members") and the answers therefore necessarily vague and unreliable ("Last year he just could write his own name, now that he participated in the Robinson campaign he can read street signs and the grocery bill!" - "Damn, how do we take note of this for the statistics professors in the US, I guess your uncle was not exactly illiterate last year, but this year he may be very definitely a literate person. Whatever, I'll check literate - no change").

Rodriguez knows this, admits it, and doesn't claim otherwise. So how can he pretend to honestly proceed? It's because they're the numbers of the GOVERNMENT! Says the professor who knows a thing or two how data are collected. He obviously thinks he is very funny. WE WERE USING THEIR OWN NUMBERS, HAHA! Gotcha! Surely no Chavez supporter will admit that there might be something wrong with the numbers collected by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística? HAHAHA.

So he adds them up, applies complicated formulas, breaks them down and knits them together. All the while knowing they don't mean a thing. Does he expect anyone to buy into this crap? Certainly not. What he does is producing a "source", a "scientific" document. It's just a stupid little game he uses to base opinion articles on. "See? I studied it carefully. You can examine it if you like." Knowing quite well that those who want to listen to his slanders will carefully avoid reading a "scientific" paper. Even though it's just a measly twenty something pages, double-spaced, in large print, with a few tables added.

I suggest you read it. At least until you get to page 8. And then you can explain to us how the crude interview question “¿Sabe leer y escribir?”, asked to the person or persons present at the moment of the interview about all household members (presumably of a sample, unless Venezuela has the resources to question each and every household in the country every year, in shacks and mansions alike) will provide a scientifically reliable result for the evaluation of a literacy campaign that has reached maybe 5% of 27 million in Venezuela.

[AlphaCentauri]

147. I visited Maracaibo when Carlitos Andres Perez was president

and I tell you Venezuela was as you describe it. Many thing have change since then.

[Pavulon]

163. It is better near coro

but that is a traditionally wealthy area. Things are getting better brazil and colombia. However ecomonic changes are at work. Bolivia is still in trouble with poverty.

I have not been to valera and the interior part of the state but many people I work with move from there for work.

Chavez takes personal credit for any change and then lies about the results when everything is not a good.

That makes a politician, to some here his is a god. And that is what i find strange.

[WriteDown]

168. Hope and chicken feet in the markets...

price controls are just so wonderful :eyes:

[desktop]

13. It will take far more than a majority to get a new constitution

The way things are. Even 85% of the people would have difficulty changing a constitution when 15% of the people have all the power, money, property, weapons, natural resources, etc., etc.... As long as a few people will sell you out for some capital, it will be hard to ever change things significantly. I think it is about 1% of the people who have 50% of the wealth in this country.

[Danger Mouse]

56. What are you even talking about? You think we need a new constitution?

Why? What's wrong with the one we have?

[Selatius]

90. The current one is in desperate need of new amendments.

For one, the Electoral College should be abolished in favor of straight popular vote, and another amendment should be introduced mandating a run-off election if no one gains a majority of the vote in the first round. That's just two, and I could probably think of several more amendments that would help ensure a more representative government.

[Occulus]

140. Inset the word "natural" immediately prior to the word "person" in the 14th Amendment.

Each and every instance.

Kill corporate personhood, open their books, and follow the money.

I've come to believe that ending corporate personhood could very well eventually make it impossible for corporations to participate in the least in any political process, and that itself would go a long, long way toward solving all our problems once and for all.

(Yes, that means paid corporate lobbyists would be gone. They can go get a real job in the kakistocracy they themselves helped to create for all I care.)

The doctrine that corporations are persons for the purpose of law grants a piece of paper (the corporation) all the rights of citizens of the United States- excepting the right to vote- with none of the responsibilities. You can't jail a corporation, and there is no such things as a judicial corporate death penalty. They know this very well, and exploit it shamelessly.

[bean fidhleir]

207. And along with that, declare the use of money to be unprotected non-speech

Paying for something should never be considered symbolic speech.

Getting money out of the political arena would be a massive step toward real reform and democracy.

[WriteDown]

169. That is ridiculous...

And watch states like Montana and Idaho have no say whatsoever or no grants for things like highway maintenance. That is why the electoral college is there. Politicians would completely ignore all but 5 or so states.

[Selatius]

189. I don't buy that argument for one bit. The US Senate already serves that reason.

It is why a state like Mississippi with 3 million voters can cancel out a state like California with 30 million voters in the US Senate. To say that the Electoral College should be maintained despite the very existence of the US Senate is one I do not take seriously at all.

[WriteDown]

196. Take the recent floods in IA....

Although the aid was poorly managed. Billions flowed there. I expect that it would have been in single digits if the electoral college was abolished. Why would any power-grubbing politician need to care about IA. That money could be devoted to another crystalline highrise in NY :sarcasm:

[Selatius]

222. See, I don't subscribe to such a pessimistic view as that, and I thought I was cynical.

For your information, I live down here in the footprint of Katrina. My neighbors got flooded out across the street, and several of my co-workers lost family members in Biloxi. I know one person who was part of the rescue effort who had to pull dead bodies out of attics of ruined buildings after the flood waters finally receded, and one of my personal friends smelled rotting bodies in neighborhoods that got hit with the storm surge.

I bring this up because under the Electoral College we got screwed by Bush and his FEMA, so unless you have concrete examples that says Al Gore would've done much much worse than Bush because he won the POPULAR VOTE, I will remain unconvinced. It took 5 days before they got bottled water to the Superdome. THAT was done under Bush. I cannot speak for others or for your viewpoint, with which I disagree, but for me, that was affirmation that the popular vote would've saved America thousands of innocent lives and over a million Iraqi lives as well.

[bitchkitty]

112. For one, they don't care about the one we have.

But of course, they would hardly care about the new one. Like Selatius says below, it is in need of some key amendments.

on edit - reread my post and see why you asked. I was talking about revolution, about liberty. I wish our government was socialist in nature rather than corporatist.

[Trillo]

10. I usually keep my mouth shut with Chavez, but I have a question for him.

What good is any constitution if those in control refuse to follow it and the laws derived therefrom?

[Dollface]

12. Our Constitution will be fine as soon as we put a constitutional scholar in charge. GOBAMA!

[Faygo Kid]

14. Damned right. And we appoint a few decent Supreme Court justices, too.

[Dollface]

16. From your lips...

[Cleita]

28. And come up with an amendment or two

to address capitalistic fascism in the future.

[enid602]

17. Hugo

Yes, we need a new constitution to allow our leaders to scare off investment by nationalizing everything, whether it needs it or not. We need a more powerful executive who can change the economy so we, too can have 30 to 40% yearly inflation. We need a leader who proposes all kinds of progressive legislation, but throws in a little something to make himself leader for life.

[Peace Patriot]

77. Chavez has produced a nearly 10% economic growth rate over the last 5 years,

with the most growth in the private sector (not including oil), while reducing extreme poverty by 30% and overall poverty by 50%, nearly eliminating literacy, providing schools and medical centers to all poor areas never before served by government, providing subsidies for people to go back to school (if they never finished, or need retraining), empowering ordinary people in local councils to make decisions about the use of federal dollars in their communities, re-negotiating the oil contracts for a 60/40 split in favor of Venezuela (as opposed to the 10/90 split by which previous, rightwing governments who were giving away the oil resource to multinationals), enforcing the tax laws (huge number of tax scofflaws in Venezuela prior to Chavez), and creating more security for Venezuela's economy and financial system against the predatory capitalist meltdown we are seeing now, as well as from meddling by Corpo/fascists intent on destroying democracy in Venezuela and South America. (For instance, the Chavez government bought the Bank of Venezuela; it was nationalized before Chavez, then sold into private hands, then, recently, put up for sale.)

Chavez has also been a leader in several important movements/trends in South America--the movement toward economic and political integration (the new South American "Common Market"), the movement for social justice, rejection of the World Bank/IMF loan sharks, rejection of U.S. dominated "free trade," and rejection of the failed, corrupt, murderous, anti-poor people U.S. "war on drugs."

There is also the underlying, basic movement toward democracy--most notable on the issue of the honesty and integrity of the election system. Venezuela has an election system that puts our own to shame for its transparency. They have been a leader on this vital issue in South America, and one of the first countries to benefit by about a decade of hard work, by many people, on cleaning up South America's elections.

An excellent example of this big change was a recent election that Chavez lost--the constitutional referendum. Chavez has won the elections for president by increasing margins--the last one, with 63% of the vote. He thought he could turn his personal popularity into deeper socialist changes in Venezuela. Toward that end, his government and the National Assembly proposed a package of constitutional amendments for a nation-wide vote of the people last year. It was a complicated proposal that included items such as equal rights for gays and women (in a Catholic country with very rightwing clergy), a pension for informal economy workers (like street vendors), giving the president more power over the financial system, and lifting the term limit on the president.* There were 69 changes, all told--on a lot of different issues--for an up or down vote. Chavez lost that vote by a hair (50.7% to 49.3%), did not challenge the vote (although he would have been within his rights to do so, on such a close vote), accepted the loss gracefully, and moved on.

In how many dictatorships do the people get to vote on the Constitution? In how many dictatorships does everyone's vote get counted? And how many dictators do you know of, who promote equal rights for gays and women? Just a few of the questions that people who call Chavez a "dictator" should answer.

*(Note: Our own FDR ran for and won FOUR terms in office, and died in his 4th term. He was "president for life"--but that's what the people wanted. Most of our Founders opposed term limits as undemocratic. Our own 2-term limit on the president was rammed through by Republicans in the 1950s, to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening in this country again.)

If South Americans have a chance at self-determination today, and a chance at a prosperous future--and it seems very clear that we are witnessing a political sea change in those directions--Chavez has been an important reason why. He has been the vanguard leader of the left, who has survived every dirty rotten scheme of the Bushwhacks and their rightwing colluders in Venezuela to destroy his very popular government and remove him, by assassination or other means.

Inflation is ALWAYS a problem when leaders are seeking social justice. It means that people are being paid decent wages. It means that money and credit are liquid. It means that people can afford to buy things, and business people are trying to satisfy that demand, and are pushing prices as high as they can get away with. Inflation is better for ordinary people than deflation--at least to a point. I don't know all the in's and out's of this issue, but I do know this. Give me Chavez, any day, in charge of OUR economy, over the fuckwads who have given us a TEN TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, and are stealing every last dime out of our pockets, unto the 7th generation.

You want a fascist controlled economy? Go live in Colombia--or just stay here. We're in for a rough ride, friend, and nobody in Washington DC or on Wall Street gives a fuck what happens to you and me.

[leftchick]

91. "nearly eliminating literacy"?

I am sure you meant Illiteracy. Once again another excellent post full of facts! Thank you PP, but do not expect answers from the close minded here.

Yes indeed we are in for a very rough ride given the denial even our own party is in.

:(

[Peace Patriot]

149. Oops! Thanks for the correction. I meant illiteracy, of course.

Yes, it's rather an odd alignment for giving the Corpo malefactors $700 billion (AND bottomless credit) when we're facing a TEN TRILLION DOLLAR Bushfuck deficit. The Democrats can't wait to kiss Bush's and their major contributors' asses, by forking billions over to these bastards, and nothing--NOTHING!--to the gas-gouged, mortgaged out, health cared out, maxed out, jobless, disheartened, poor people of this country. Nothing! That's our Democrats. And it's hard to say which is worse--them, or McCain and the Pukes in Congress doing this macabre dance of "opposition."

We WILL get our country back. We will. But it ain't going to be easy, and it ain't going to be quick. It's likely going to take decades just to undo the damage to our election system. And I'm convinced that's where we need to start, with a massive citizen movement at the state/local level, to get rid of the 'TRADE SECRET' code in the voting machines.

I didn't think anything could be as outlandish as 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting. I was wrong. This bailout is more outlandish. These Corpofucks have looted us, without mercy, for eight years--after more than two decades of looting since Reagan--and now we now have to pay them for looting us?!

Well, that's what Diebold & brethren are all about, friends. It wasn't just the war. It was this, too. And it ain't over yet.

[leftchick]

159. I think the Democrats' Complicity is worse

pretending for fucking years to be working for us when all along they had the same 'bosses' as the repukes. I think that is so much worse.

:puke:

[truedelphi]

237. Love your post but what do you mean about

Trade secret voting etc.

Never heard the expression...

[leftchick]

248. the proprietary software

no one can view it except the DRE manufacturers.

[geminifemini]

120. Thank you for excellent post.

I would hope that Obama and Chavez and Castro would meet when
Barack is our President.
I remember when Chavez offered free fuel oil when winter
looked grim and Bush/Cheney turned it down and villified him.
After that I drove 10 miles to buy gas from the nearest Citgo.
 Reminds me of their refusal to accept Cuba's help during
Katrina.  Are we cultivating relations with Columbia for a
reason? 

[Judi Lynn]

158. You bring to public awareness how BIG, how important the change is going on all over Latin America

after decades of recent unbelievable suffering, exploitation, vilest manipulation and plundering, and seizure of their own government by outside forces just for the ####ing chance to control and use them with no positive return for the people whatsoever, only pain, and fear, and threats of more to come.

It's amazing being able to see them move into their unifying effort, their solidarity, one-ness of purpose, their new identity, born from WITHIN after being enslaved, tortured, massacred from power outside, via hand-picked oligarchic fascist puppets and U.S. planning and support, unfortunately, and usually by right-wing idiot Presidents. Their movement, coming from within their own region, not ours, assuming control of their own lives is not likely to fail this time, as they undoubtedly only need a quick memory of the past to remind them of what they can never allow again in their lifetimes.

I hope they got to memorize their enemy's tricks, machinations very well, and are well prepared to counter ALL efforts to re-subjugate them.

[Wizard777]

19. It would be much easier for US to find a new President for Venezeula

I generally like Hugo. But this is where he's gone too damned far. Nevermind our back. That's a knife in our heart. So that I simply have to say, Mene Mene Tekel Eupharison. Hopefully he'll have a change of heart before we have a change in the Venezeulian Head of State. Capitalism is no part of the US Constitution. It's also not a suitable substitute for the equality demanded by the Democracy set forth in the US Constitution. In fact capitolism in many respects is the antithesis of that democracy. It would have been far better for him to remind us of that. I really hope he doesn't think that we aren't fully aware that is exactly what our republicans are up to. God never gives anyone a burden the can't handle.

[democracy1st]

21. this guy is sick in the head to hell with him

[Pastiche423]

43. What makes him "sick in the head"?

That he cares for his fellow countrymen and despises capitalists?

Please inform us dummies w/your masterful use of words (gmfao) why President Chavez is sick. I'm sure you will supply many links to back your words, right?

[democracy1st]

71. I don't mind that but saying we need a new constitution ,mind ur own country's business

[provis99]

124. Thomas Jefferson said the constitution should be replaced every generation

James Madison, the author of the Constitution, said it should be replaced every two generations. Both thought a constitution would become seriously outdated, and prone to authoritarian conservatism, if it lasted longer than that. I agree with them. Do you disagree with the Founding Fathers?

[Pastiche423]

127. As I thought

You know jack shit about President Chavez.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

49. That's what The Heritage Foundation says. It must be true!

[democracy1st]

73. I'm opposed to the heritage foundation,everything chavez does isn't always right talk to people

that are in the US from Venezuela and get back with me

[EFerrari]

99. No thanks. I know a lot of business men that leave South America

when democracy rears its ugly head among them.

[Pavulon]

132. I do business in Latin America

with the shift in the dollar companies buying specialized equipment find that European equipment costs much more than better equipment we make here.

So business has improved across the region. At the end of the day money is very important. Even in Venezuela, we do business because we provide a better option. Business sell to any country that provide a legal market. Brazil is much more difficult (has been for many years) than Venezuela.

Who ever takes hugo's job with a ballot or bullet will still be required to purchase goods and services from the US.

[melody]

22. Hugo needs to STFU

Our Constitution is fine ... it's the government that is screwing it up.

[0rganism]

23. wrong about the constitution, right about the capitalism

The constitution can be amended repeatedly until we get it right. If the credit crisis gets painfully bad, we may have to do that again as we nationalize the banks.

Regardless, it'd be a lot easier to fix the constitution we have now than get any agreement from this severely polarized nation on a new one.

[AllyCat]

103. Yup.

[galileoreloaded]

25. Hey Hugo, it must really piss you off...

that your hero, Che, was so revolutionary his image gets picked up as t-shirts and worn by American 20 somethings at your arch enemy, "The Gap".
Actually,I see a new trend coming for American Eagle, messenger bags with the Venezuelan flag.

[EFerrari]

58. Why should that piss him off? Venezuela has a mixed economy.

We should be glad that someone pushes back on Bush if our own guys won't. Twice last week, Chavez pointed out that Bush wants to socialize debt and he called little Bush AND McTroll "comrade" just to piss them off. lol

And, I want one of those Gap, anti-capitalistic bags. :)

[knixphan]

228. ditto! (and the bags too!)

[depakid]

26. Wow. I actually agree with something Chavez said!

Structural problems in the Constitution prevent any effective and responsible reforms that remove the corrupting influnce of corporate money from the electoral proceses- and they allow a few from small states the power to impede meaningful legislation to address the nation's problems in a timely manner.

[bossy22]

32. well in a way thats a good thing

you dont want change to happen to quickly many times

the constitution as it is now was designed to create a backlog mess when it comes to legislation- its a built in internal safety that prevents the government from stripping our liberties in a single bound (though it doesnt prevent them from doing it slowly).

The constitution has its problems- but all in all i think its the best it can be done- i think the changes that President Chavez would propose would probably come with a great deal of unintended consequences

In a free society we have to live with such problems as corporate influence and "special interests" (in actuallity i think special interests are many times a good thing rather than a bad thing)

[depakid]

38. It was a good thing until somewhere around the mid 1970's

When the world became "faster," more interconnected and mass media driven.

In the 21st Century, events demand timely responses, feedback from responses (unintended consequences) need to be adapted to. Unfortunately, in many ways, the inertia in America's 18th Century system, unlike Parliamentary systems, militate against that.

Trouble is- changing root problems (like undue influence on the part of monied interests or electoral reform) requires a double super majority (set out in Article V) that, for all intents and purposes- is impossible to accomplish.

[closeupready]

29. MYOFB, Chavez.

n/t

[Pastiche423]

45. That's right

He should mind his own fucking business while the imperialists destroy our country. :eyes:

[Danger Mouse]

61. We don't need or want that prick's sage advice.

[EFerrari]

64. Speak for yourself. And that "prick" has been the only one many times

to push back on Bush. Really, get a grip.

[Danger Mouse]

69. Being anti-Bush doesn't make somebody a saint.

[EFerrari]

70. The "saint" claim is always from people like you who don't like Chavez.

It's never from students of Venezuela here on DU. I'm so sorry.

My family has been active in LA politics for the last 150 years. I'm going to be the last one to call any politician a saint.

This "saint" crap is what you guys throw out when you have nothing to justify your dislike. And, it's old. Really, really old.

ETA: It's fine with me if you just don't like his looks. That's your privilege. But please, putting words in other people's mouths is just lame.

[Danger Mouse]

72. Okay, let me amend that. Being anti-Bush doesn't make him a good person or a good politician.

And I'm sorry, but with some DUer's, Hugo Chavez is a sacred cow. Deny it all you like, but that's how it is. Same thing for Cindy Sheehan.

[EFerrari]

81. Being anti-Bush doesn't make him a good person or a good politician.

I agree with that 100%.

[Danger Mouse]

88. I don't like him, and I don't like how some people put him up on a pedastal.

But I know that we all have our heroes, and people we look up to, respect, and admire. For me, he just is not one of them.
I don't think of him as a dictator, but I do think he's too outspoken, anti-Bush or not.

[EFerrari]

95. With a mouth that big, he needs Russia.

I agree with that, too!

lol

:)

[Tatiana]

145. Like the United States does, right? n/t

[closeupready]

171. Completely irrelevant. Either the US does or does not have the right to lecture other countries

about their constitutions and how their citizens come together and democratically agree about how they want to operate their country.

If you think we don't have that right, Chavez doesn't either. He obviously can do what he wants, but I can also tell him to mind his own fucking business, because this ISN'T his business.

[tama]

201. How about dialogue? n/t

[MadrasT]

30. There's nothing wrong with our Constitution that couldn't be

fixed by a few impeachments, imprisonments, and fair fucking ELECTIONS.

The Constitution is not the problem. It's the bastards who thing it's a bunch of quaint suggestions that can be handily ignored when it doesn't suit their purpose to follow them.

To the BFEE, the end justifies the means, no matter how horrendous the means.

[bossy22]

34. EXACTLY!!

sadly i think the only one who understands that is Russ Feingold

[annabanana]

212. What YOU said!.. . . . . .n/t

[pork medley]

31. george w. bush, re: the constitution: 'it's just a piece of paper'

i agree 100%

[tritsofme]

36. Personally, I don't give a shit what the leaders of rogue states have to say.

nt

[NeoConsSuck]

41. rogue state??

between sips of your koolaid, what is your definition of a 'rogue state'?

[EFerrari]

48. "States that do not bend over for BushCo"?

lol

[tritsofme]

50. Ask Senator Obama.

As he defined Venezuela as a rogue state in last night's debate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. We're not Republicans

We don't have to agree with everything the nominee says.

[tritsofme]

108. Well I happen to agree with him on this particular issue.

[High Plains]

126. Why? I'd love to see you explain why Venezuela is a "rogue state"

[reorg]

76. When did he do that?

You may be making an honest mistake and confuse Iran (which Obama labelled a rogue state during the debate) with Venezuela? Or maybe not.

[EFerrari]

82. Obama has said that on several occasions. It was disappointing

but maybe more a measure of the climate here than of Obama. We'll find out.

[NeoConsSuck]

152. I didn't ask Obama. I asked you.

When you parroted politician's talking points, I doubted your critical thinking skills right off the bat, hence my reference to koolaid.

And since you wouldn't (or couldn't) answer my question, it appears my take on you was right on the mark.

Here's my attempt at critical thinking:

America needs a bogeyman to justify the enormous military budget. They can't use Saddamn Hussein anymore, Bin Laden is not working anymore, North Korea is quiet, so Chavez will do quite well.

America is in an uproar over a *one time* spending bill of 700 billion to bail out failed capitalism, but while that is being debated, no one apparently noticed a recurring (on an annual basis) cost that exceeds that 700 billion in just two years. That is our military budget.

From Yahoo:

The measure is dominated by $488 billion for the Pentagon, $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department and $73 billion for veterans' programs and military base construction projects -- amounting to about 60 percent of the budget work Congress must pass each year.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080927/congress_spending.html?.v=2

[reorg]

80. Chavez is sticking it to the leaders of rogue states

That's why people listen to him.

[MasonJar]

39. Even back when the great framers were originating the Constitution

they were concerned about corporations. However, they felt the policing of them could be left to the States.

[Poseidan]

40. To be perfectly frank

Given the current state of the Union, I think a new Constitution, and/or constituent assembly, would open up too many opportunities for further increases in fascism.

The United States should never have been an empire. We will have to face the shame of its collapse, as punishment for abandoning our principles. There is nothing in any true American doctrine advocating imperialism or the building and expanding of empire's.

[EFerrari]

47. That's a very good point. Not in this climate, no way. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

46. Some changes I would like to see in the Constitution...

1. Ban all private money in political campaigns. Devote 1% of the Federal budget to candidate access to the public. Reclaim time on our public airwaves for political debate (from private Corpo/fascists who rule the media now).

2. One person/one vote - counted in PUBLIC VIEW. Ban all private corporations from any participation in the election system.

3. End the Electoral College. Direct popular vote for president.

4. End "personhood" for business corporations; end the life of business corporations at 20 years (monopolies broken up, assets sold).

5. Progressive tax.

6. Elections or term limits for the Supreme Court Justices.

7. Reinforce the language that gives Congress sole power to declare war. I don't see how it can be any clearer, but it needs to be. (This doesn't solve the problem of Congress being collusive on unjust wars, but maybe counting the votes in PUBLIC view will do that.)

8. Ban a number of Bushwhack abuses, so they never happen again: Executive "signing statements," "Executive privilege," Executive orders, and virtually all government secrecy.

9. Ban torture and capital punishment.

-------------

There are a lot of things I would like to see as government policy--such as "instant run-off" elections, universal health care, protection of Social Security from any borrowing against it, free college education, legalization of all drugs, legalization of prostitution, end of the "prison-industrial complex," end of the "military-industrial complex," end of the "war on drugs," repeal of the Patriot Act, etc., but I think the above changes will lead to these reforms, and we have a tradition of the Constitution being a broad-stroke document (different from Latin America's tradition of a very detailed document that is often revised). We need to make a distinction between what is broad-stroke and what should be hammered out in Congress or the states. "Instant run-off" elections straddles the line. I would be tempted to make it the law of the land, in order to break up the two-party system (which has become so corrupt), or at least to introduce a wider spectrum political debate. But there are reasons not to dictate to the states on election systems (the coup d'etat of private, 'TRADE SECRET,' electronic voting that we have suffered being one of them; the Constitutional mandate should be simple: count the votes in PUBLIC VIEW). I think the basic "balance of power" structure that the Constitution lays out, and the Bill of Rights, are both sound and should be kept in tact, but times do change, and the above 9 changes to the Constitution address some of the things we've learned since 1776.

[Irish Girl]

52. liberty!

Chavez is absolutely right in some regards and wrong in others. Our Constitution protects us but the neocon fascists have used our Constitution to wipe their asses as they seized their seats in the Oval Office. The dictatorship forming from Big Banks and corporations will be the death of our great nation unless we wake up, stop being passive and realize we're all being duped. Only then can all the corruption be cleansed out and the new Republic of fifty states truly prosper.

As things stand now, the banks have us in a debt-based monetary scheme of slavery and have infiltrated our government on every level.

[bemildred]

53. No, we need a legitimately elected government that follows the one we have.

That would be more than sufficient.

[Danger Mouse]

55. Oh, bullshit, Chavez. What the fuck ever.

I'm sure the usual crowd will be in here to wank Chavez, but I have no use for him.
Anyway, what we need is a government that respects and upholds the constitution that we have.

[scarface2004]

57. chavez is absolutely correct..as usual!

our constitution sucks...look what it has wrought in the last eight years! we need something which will never allow the likes of bush, cheney, scalia, gingrich, gramm, mcain to ever be set loose on this nation again!!

[Danger Mouse]

59. Yeah, let's just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sounds good to me!

:eyes:
The means for dealing with Bush and his slime are there. It's just the fault of Pelosi and Congress for not using them.

[mzmolly]

87. Ignoring the constitution is what

sucks.

[Plucketeer]

67. Actually........

We've gotten a new constitution since Y2K. And I must say, I like tho old one better.

[lostnotforgotten]

68. Actually I Agree With Chavez - The Republicans Have So Screwed Ours Up

It's time to start over with all the lessons learned about how to keep Freeper Republicans away from the levers of power!

[sandrakae]

75. Im gonna send Hugo a T - Shirt.

[EFerrari]

83. Another progressive for free speech!

:rofl:

[Moochy]

143. Is it act like a dumbass freeper night?

[varelse]

78. oh HELL no

We need our old one back NOW. Please tend your own knitting, Mr Chavez, and let us unravel this mess on our own.

[ronnie624]

174. It isn't easy listening to "outsiders" criticize your government,

but the actions of the United States have affected people throughout the world, profoundly. This is particularly true in Latin America. I can't imagine why a Venezuelan should not be entitled to opine about the nature of the U.S. government, especially when the very fabric of his/her society has been so deeply affected by a century of intensive U.S. machinations in the entire region.

And what is so bad about what he is saying, anyway? It is indisputable that the U.S. legislative and policy making establishments have been long corrupted by corporate interests, and are in dire need of deep structural reforms. The current financial crisis is a prime example of the systematic dismantling of oversight through the quasi-legal bribery of legislators ("campaign finance" and "lobbying"). It is a debacle that affects everyone on earth. Now the very fabric of our supposed democracy is threatened by the privatization of our election process.

While the need for a new constitution is debatable, what is not, is that the U.S. government is rotten to its core and in desperate need of reform, constitutional or otherwise.

[dansolo]

79. Doesn't he realize who would be writing this new Constitution?

Chavez is a fool. Normally I just ignore his rantings, but this statement is positively idiotic.

[Peace Patriot]

135. Idiotic it is not. But he's coming from a different legal tradition and political context.

For instance, at least three countries in South America have re-written their Constitutions in the last eight years. Venezuela, eight years ago. Ecuador and Bolivia, right now. In fact, Ecuador's vote on the new Constitution is coming up TOMORROW (Sun Sept 28)--a very important vote that Ecuador's new leftist president is likely to win, and win big. (The proposal is way ahead in the polls--60% approval.)

In you look into the histories of these countries, over the last 50 to 100 years, you find frequent re-writes of the Constitution. For these new leftist governments, it is a way of overturning decades of rightwing/Corpo/fascist entrenchment, where the fascists keep their claws on the levers of power, even if they lose the presidency, by controlling the bureaucracy, police, courts and military through bribery and corruption, and by accumulating vast wealth.

In Bolivia, for instance, 95% of the land is owned by a few very rich people, and was often obtained by violence or corrupt means. They have evicted tens of thousands of poor peasant farmers, who migrate to the urban areas, where there are few jobs and where they can't even feed their families by farming. The conflict in Bolivia right now, is over the rewrite of the Constitution, proposed by constituent assemblies, and approved by the Morales government, which will, among other things, seek land reform--giving small agricultural plots back to the campesinos, and codifying the rights of the majority indigenous population (whose condition has been close to slavery--sometimes outright slavery--throughout Bolivia's history).

The Bushwhacks have funded and organized some fascist elements of the white minority to engage in riots and murder (last week), trying to prevent a vote on this Constitution. The Constitution actually gives them a process for seeking autonomy legally and properly, but they want more than autonomy. They want to break up Bolivia, and create a fascist mini-state in control of the gas and oil resources. Anyway, the whole crisis is centered around the new Constitution.

THIS is the perspective that Chavez is coming from, in suggesting that WE re-write our Constitution. This is not an "idiotic" suggestion. There are some structural things that we need in order to throw off Corpo/fascist rule, but we could probably accomplish that by AMENDING the present Constitution (in ways such as I suggested above), and keeping its basic structure. What our Founders didn't provide for was Corporate Rule--these out of control, international corporate monopolies gaining power over our very voting system, all of our public airwaves, our politicians, and, in fact, taking over our government. It's not that they didn't understand the danger of corporate monopolies. They were dealing with the British one (the East India Company--the immediate cause of the American Revolution). But they thought the "balance of powers"--including the powers of the states (for instance, to charter corporations in the public interest)--would prevent untoward corporate power.

They were wrong.

This is the basic problem of our Constitution: modern-day corporate power--which is now centered in Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, and China, and Singapore, and at the Bilderburg Group. Corporations are totally out of control; they straddle borders; they have no loyalty to any country or people; they are gobbling up all of our resources, our land, our wealth, our tax dollars; they are writing our laws; they have hijacked our military for corporate resource wars; they are running our elections, with machines containing 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code that we, the People, are not even permitted to see.

We need to throw them off. And that is what I think Chavez means. We need a structural change that attacks their power, the way the American Revolutionists attacked the power of King George (who owned the East India Company): by first of all declaring that he didn't have any power, any longer, in America. The American Revolution was first of all a declaration of governing principles, and secondly a boycott. That led to war. I don't think we need a war to accomplish this similar revolution. They are accomplishing it in South America without firing a shot. They are doing it by means of democracy--by voting. You wonder why the Corpos took over our voting system, with their secret code? This is why. We already have the right to revolutionize this country, peacefully. That's what our Founders fought for, and won, for us. But we have first to restore our voting system to the PUBLIC VENUE. That can be still be done at the state/local level--but we may not have much time. It's very urgent. And then we will have the democratic strength to demand real reform, and to amend the Constitution as needed.

[Irish Girl]

148. Very nice

Peace Patriot, that was an amazing post and reading it gave me hope that one day we can restore a stable and prosperous republic for our children.

[mzmolly]

86. Gotta disagree

on this one Mr. Chavez.

[jmowreader]

89. OMG can you imagine what would happen if we tried it?

Wildmon's people would try to force bans on homosexuals (not just gay marriage, homosexuals period) and abortion for any reason into it plus trying to codify America as a "Christian nation," we'd be attempting to write "marriage is a union of two consenting adults" and the legalization of cannabis into the document, and the whole process would collapse.

[lelgt60]

92. Yes - We need to remove that annoying presidential term limit n/t

[Ikonoklast]

94. Says the man that plotted a failed coup

Hugo is going the same route as Mugabe, "President For Life".

We'll see in a few years how that works out for Venezuela.

[EFerrari]

97. Old, tired, inaccurate. But nice and smeary as Venezuela comes up on 10 years,

not a few years, of a Chavez administration.

And you'd be farther ahead to see how well it's working out for South America since he started organizing states to be independent of the U.S. while Rummy was killing and torturing in Iraq.

[Ikonoklast]

101. Time will tell

Demagogues always end up on the losing end of history.

Chavez is not the saint you seem to think he is.

Time will tell.

[EFerrari]

104. I haven't been Catholic for many years. And time is telling. n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

96. The Constitution isn't our problem. Enforcing it and all the junk added

onto it and around it (Executive Orders, Federal Reserve, etc.), is. It's the fact that two branches of government are in the hands of the neocons, and the third branch is impotent. And it's the same in most of the states.

The last thing we need is no law at all - the fascists would love that.

Capitalism isn't in our Constitution. These outsiders who think they know our problems get a little tiresome.

It's a struggle between Laissez-faire and New Deal. We've done some things right now and then, what we need to do is return to it.

Tax the hell out of the mega-rich, and very quickly their power to do harm would be greatly diminished. That's exactly why too much wealth should not be encouraged. Then, dust off the Anti-trust laws and start busting up these "too big to fail" monstrosities.

The law is needed to fix this. It isn't what we want to throw overboard right now.

[Odin2005]

98. Give me LIBERTY OR DEATH.

I'm not a big fan of Chavez, But he's totally right here.

I've read an interesting book that talking about some very interesting similarities between the US and the Roman Republic pre-100BC. The author calls both "Empires of Trust" (as opposed to "Empires of Conquest" and "Empires of Commerce), A system of alliances centered around a young federation that everyone (explicitly or implicitly) trusts even though people in other countries in the alliance may criticize the central federation (The Greeks in the case of Rome and Western Europe in the case of the US). This is why the Neo-Cons are so damaging, they are having the US act like an Empire of Commerce, damaging the bonds of trust hold our "Empire of Trust" together. We should be the First Among Equals, the "shining city upon a hill," not a conqueror of the world.

[PBS Poll-435]

100. Thanks Hugo

Any American that is still listening to you is....

Well...

Nevermind.

[AllyCat]

102. Usually like him, but he's wrong on this. We have a Constitution

no leaders seem to understand or notice. Our Constitution does not say anything about us being capitalists either. The capitalist system and our Constitution are not the same thing.

[Demeter]

105. Unfortunately, Hugo, I Think We Are Too Far Gone For That--2nd Revolution, Maybe

in the French style, this time.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

106. Chavez is a fascist. He's trying to institute one-party government. At least we have a duopoly.

[EFerrari]

107. I hear he eats kittens and revs his motor at stop signs, too!

[Judi Lynn]

153. It would be valuable if you posted that information you've got on Chavez's intention

to "institute one-party government." We need to know more about it, since it has never been discussed here by the posters who actually do a lot of research on Latin America all the time.

Please provide a link to that plan to "institute one-party government" in order to educate the DU'ers who need to know, like you.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

175. Chavez has also restricted the media.

Lots of references in the articles, as a starting point, 18 in the Free Speech section alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#Free_speech

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#Authoritarian_rule_and_power_consolidation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez#Criticism (three references in a single paragraph).

Chavez has been accused of concentrating power of judicial and legislative branches.<207> The leading business daily of Argentina, Ambito Financiero, predicted that Venezuela under Chavez in 2007 would have a "nationalized economy, out-of-control spending, government by decree, and perpetual re-election."<208> The motion which included the provision to allow indefinite presidential re-election was voted down in national referendum in 2007. The daily also compared Chavez to King Louis XIV of France, stating his 2007 inauguration would mark "a concentration of power without precedent in Venezuela."<209>

[EFerrari]

194. Right wing smears of Chavez are as common as cigarrette butts.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

195. ... as are reflexive socialist defenses of him.

[EFerrari]

197. There is nothing reflexive in spending time and attention

sorting through allegations like the ones you just posted. You might try it sometime. When you track this crap down, you usually wind up at The Heritage Foundation website.

[jlacivita]

109. What Chavez is doing here is giving us some of our own medicine

Sure we could fix our problems without a new constitution, but isn't it nicely ironic when another country's leader says that the US deserves real democracy?

He's using this statement to point out whats wrong in our country (corporate interests in washington) while mocking us as well (by declaring he wants to give us democracy)

Chavez and Castro have their problems, but if you look for the ironic sense of humor they put a sprinkle of in all their US directed statements, they're very fun to read :)

BTW, do some research on Che Guevara. Regardless of what you think of the Cuban revolution (for or against) he wasn't a real revolutionary, just a trouble maker with a gun.

[EFerrari]

114. As Americans, we don't get how people can poke our government

without taking a poke at us -- unless we're doing it. I think that's the disconnect here.

In other countries, people take jabs at governments all the time and the people just laugh with. We don't seem to be able to do that.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

115. No he's not. He's just mouthing off. He's made a career of mouthing off. He's lucky oil is high now

[happydreams]

204. "PAZing" gas much.

:eyes:

[Redstone]

116. Oh, fuck him.

Redstone

[happydreams]

214. Yea, faack him....

were doing just fine up here. No need to worry.

[DissedByBush]

118. Hugo is an anti-Bolivarian idiot

He says we need a new Constitution. He says he's at the front of a Bolivarian revolution. But Simon Bolivar admired the foundations of the US. Bolivar believed in the free market and limited government, pretty much the opposite of Chavez.

I'll have more respect if Chavez denounces Bolivar and just admits he's a plain-old socialist. But he can't do that because Bolivar is a Latin American hero and Chavez has been disingenuously hitching a ride on Bolivar's coattails to get where he is.

[provis99]

125. we should admire the free market and limited government?

Hello, Mr. Freeper troll.

[DissedByBush]

134. It's about who he says he admires

He's named his movement Bolviarian when Bolivar would have condemned it. He is not honest, just using Bolivar's name.

Our country was set up with free markets and a limited government, which is what Bolivar admired, and so do I. Since when did liberalism equal socialism? When did the socialists take over the Democratic Party? Why do people here admire Chavez?

[Solon]

144. What's so admirable about both, especially now of all times?

Seriously, what the fuck are you on, and are you willing to share? Oh no, wait, you are a capitalist, ok, will you sell it to me? :eyes:

[DissedByBush]

178. Capitalism is the only thing that works

Communism has been proven a failure. It has not worked in one place. Socialism ("communism lite") doesn't work very well either, as Venezuela would be broke if it weren't for the oil money. Chavez couldn't afford to both keep his powerful elite paid and keep the people somewhat happy.

The difference between me and Republicans is that they want the wild wild west of free markets while I believe in sensible regulation that does two things. One, first do no harm, don't let the laws themselves create the problems in the markets. Two, don't let the markets get abusive, dishonest and out of control. Our current mess was caused by the failure of both of these principles, not by capitalism alone.

[Solon]

183. You are clueless, aren't you? Capitalism isn't the only thing that works...

first off, capitalism EXISTS in Venezuela, so there is the shattering of your fragile world view. In addition, its not the only nation on the planet that practices socialism, look to most of Western Europe for other examples, and they regulate what they allow as capitalism quite heavily as well.

Capitalism, by itself, has never worked, because truly free markets never last for long, competition, by itself, leads to consolidation and abuse, period, hence the reason for regulation in the first place.

Almost every nation on this planet(Outside of Somalia, capitalist paradise) is a MIXED economy, some socialism, some capitalism, in some nations, such as the United States, the shift is to use markets for many services that should be socialist, the balance is off, an example would be health care. In other nations, such as Sweden, the scales balance more, and oddly enough, they have a much better quality of life than we do.

You simplify things far too much.

[DissedByBush]

208. Of course capitalism exists

It's what people naturally do even under other economic systems. In the Soviet Union it was called the black market. China was having problems even feeding its people until it allowed a somewhat capitalist economy to exist. Chavez is not doing an entire vertical stroke of socialism, allowing capitalism to exist at the lower level and socializing the big stuff, kind of like the fascists.

"Capitalism, by itself, has never worked, because truly free markets never last for long"

I think you are confusing capitalism with a truly free market. Capitalism does not assume a lack of any regulation. You don't even have to touch socialism in order to properly regulate capitalism.

"In other nations, such as Sweden, the scales balance more, and oddly enough, they have a much better quality of life than we do."

They are also having some problems with their system, as in worrying about being able to pay for it. The unemployment is higher and they're trying to get people off those generous welfare rolls. They're also lucky not to pay so much in defense. BTW, Sweden had its own banking crisis in the 90s that required a government bail out, so much for the perfect economy. Only there they made sure eventual profits flowed back to the taxpayer instead of squandering it on pork and pandering.

[bean fidhleir]

203. Ever hear the term "Mondragón"? Look it up.

It's a scratch-built socialist network of corporations in the Basque country, started by a socialist priest and 5 out-of-work engineers in the early '50s.

It's a model of success, with over 85,000 owner-employees and involved in everything from basic scientific research through retail grocery operations, including both a banking system and a degree-granting university. All socialist.

There are over 700,000,000 people involved in successful socialist businesses around the world.

You really should not uncritically accept as true statements about a subject from people who are hostile to the subject. They might be lying to you, as in this case. It's better to get your information from people who actually know what they're talking about because they live it every day.

[DissedByBush]

210. It's capitalist

SAIC is a Fortune 500 tech company here that was employee-owned through stock until 2006. Employees still own about 90% of the company after the IPO. There is nothing that says a company can't take care of its people well in order to keep them happy, loyal and productive.

[bean fidhleir]

211. You seem to be confused about what distinguishes socialism from capitalism

Is the ownership of SAIC on a 1 person = 1 share = 1 vote basis? No? Then it's nothing like Mondragón.

Capitalism is where all the shares, votes, income, and power can be concentrated in the hands of a single person. In a given case they might not be, but they could be, and that makes all the difference.

Socialism is where they cannot be. In socialism, they are always distributed evenly and thus democratically. (Which is why none of the self-styled "socialist" national governments have been socialist at all: a ruling class has always held all the power and taken the profits for themselves.)

[DissedByBush]

213. Ruling classes

"Is the ownership of SAIC on a 1 person = 1 share = 1 vote basis? No? Then it's nothing like Mondragón. "

No, it's not. The more you advanced, the more shares you got. Interesting concept though. So on the return side does the CEO get paid the same as the mail clerk?

"a ruling class has always held all the power and taken the profits for themselves"

But so far that has been the only way socialism has been achieved on a country-wide scale. The reason is that people get tired of much of their effort going to support people who don't make an effort. Then people realize that whether or not they make effort their lot in life will be no better and no worse, so why try. It can work on smaller scales, from the Kibbutz to Mondragon, within a larger capitalist system. Simply, the business will fold if it allows slackers, and it has a way of getting rid of those slackers by firing or ejecting them. You end up with the cream of the crop. The Amish system works well, and they don't allow slackers.

A free country won't just kick out citizens because they don't want to work. But one with an oppressive ruling elite can do something about them, which is probably one reason why they tend to appear in socialist countries. I don't think a socialist country can survive without that ruling elite.

[bean fidhleir]

231. "Does the CEO get paid the same as the mail clerk? "

No. Ownership compensates risk. Salary compensates job. So the CEO gets more. But the principle of wage solidarity applies, so the CEO only gets maybe 7 times more than the least-paid, not 700 times more. A company's success depends on everyone, not just the CEO. All the CEO can do is frig things up with lousy decisions.

You continue to talk about "socialist countries" as though there had ever been one. That says you need a straw system to beat up. But that's not surprising, really. People who love capitalist principles tend not to like level playing fields except rhetorically, because they know the "vile maxim" repels mentally-healthy adults.

That repulsion was what Smedley Butler was on about when he talked about having been a "gangster for capitalism": capitalists have to impose and maintain capitalism by force, because sharing and fairness -aka socialism- is the basis for all human upbringing everywhere in the world. Economists continue to confirm this experimentally in the field using tools like the Ultimatum Game. Around the world, regardless of the surface differences in their societies, people choose to sacrifice personal gain and walk away rather than be treated unfairly - a complete repudiation (why am I not surprised?) of the Chicago School "homo economicus" theory.

Capitalism wouldn't last a year without fraud and force.

[DissedByBush]

232. Very alike

"No. Ownership compensates risk. Salary compensates job. So the CEO gets more."

So they're pretty much the same, employee owned companies. The main differences would be in pay scales, although I don't know how much the SAIC CEO makes.

"You continue to talk about "socialist countries" as though there had ever been one."

No True Scotsman huh? This really depends on whose theory of socialism you're using. Marx thought socialism was what you get on the way to communism, and you need that ruling class to get it there. The problem is IMO that you could never get there.

"Around the world, regardless of the surface differences in their societies, people choose to sacrifice personal gain and walk away rather than be treated unfairly - a complete repudiation (why am I not surprised?) of the Chicago School "homo economicus" theory."

You are still equating some individual choices and small organizations with an entire country, or world, being socialist. You will always find individuals and relatively small groups to be egalitarian. As I said before, those who are not are ejected, so you eliminate one of the main problems of socialism. I guess in the goal of a socialized country you could just shoot anyone who doesn't want to play along, leaving only the true believers and those too scared to stand up for their beliefs. Come to think of it, that's happened many times.

"Capitalism wouldn't last a year without fraud and force."

And no socialist country will ever be successful unless it has capitalism driving the economy.

[bean fidhleir]

254. No, very different in the essential characteristics

I'm afraid that, in trying to handwave away the vital distinction between socialist and capitalist organizations, you ally yourself with people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and their ilk. They, too, labelled their totalitarian systems as socialist democracies. Their kind know that healthy people naturally approve of socialism and democracy. Pity there's no international truth-in-advertizing law that could be applied to prevent you guys committing fraud that way.

And no, mine is not a "no true Scot" argument. The bedrock definition of socialism has always been that the people who do the work own the product of their labor. Implicit in that is the principle of fully-democratic ownership of multi-worker businesses, since unless one of the workers personally produces 50% of the output of the business, there is no way he can rightfully own 50% of the income stream. Contrast that with capitalism, where he need not produce ANY of the output -or even know what the output is- but can still own 100% of the income stream.

The countries you want to call "socialist" conformed to capitalist principles, not socialist ones: the guys at the top effectively owned everything, without ever doing any of the work, and they maintained their hegemony at first by fraud and then the ever-present threat of force, not by the informed consent of the participants.

I've more productive things to do than trying to disabuse True Believers like yourself of your religion, so I'll stop here.

[happydreams]

205. Why did Bush diss you? Not bending over far enough?

[DissedByBush]

209. It was a religious-right thing Daddy Bush did

They think they are so superior. They think nobody can be a patriot or love this country unless you believe EXACTLY as they do. It's reason #1 why I can never vote Republican.

[Judi Lynn]

154. Apparently, Simon Bolivar must have been delerious when he was quoted as having said,

"The United States seems to be destined by providence to spread misery in the name of liberty."

If I were you, I'd try to find out why people are spreading this information which is totally non-representative of Simon Bolivar's genuine, deeply held beliefs in the early 1800's concerning the United States. It just seems so wrong, doesn't it?

[DissedByBush]

182. That is an undocumented quote

In other words, it's attributed to Bolivar, but there is no evidence he said it.

Here's a documented quote: "A state too expensive in itself, or by virtue of its dependencies, ultimately falls into decay; its free government is transformed into a tyranny"

[Judi Lynn]

223. There's more to the quote you chose:

A state too expensive in itself, or by virtue of its dependencies, ultimately falls into decay; its free government is transformed into a tyranny; it disregards the principles which it should preserve, and finally degenerates into despotism. The distinguishing characteristic of small republics is stability: the character of large republics is mutability.

I don't grasp why you imagine Simon Bolivar spent his adulthood working for South American independence, if he also would approve of its subjugation to rule by the right-wing idiot Presidents of the United States.

It's a truth you need to share with all the millions of South Americans who have taken up the banner of Simon Bolivar in their countries' movement toward South American solidarity and TOTAL autonomy, free of U.S. interference. It would embarrass them so deeply to learn they've been calling themselves "Bolivarians" in complete confusion!

[TommyO]

119. Hugo, with all respect, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

[newtothegame]

129. I'd like to see an answer to the abortion debate in the constitution as well...

I am pro-choice of course, but I have never liked the WAY that abortion was legalized. The SCOTUS dug for an argument that was not there; although I don't claim to know exactly what the founders would have felt about choice, I do believe they would have found the SC's justification flimsy at best. And I believe that "weak justification" opened future conservative courts to "create" justifications for illegal policies. If there WAS a new constitution, I'd like to see the right to choose explicitly in there.

[otherlander]

133. Hey...

why didn't he stop sending people to SOA until 2004?

[Judi Lynn]

155. Thanks for mentioning the School of the Americas. It gives me a chance to post this information

for the benefit of people who haven't had the time to investigate:

~snip~
Founded in Panama in 1946 and moved to Fort Benning in 1984, the SOA has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers in military and law-enforcement tactics. The Pentagon has acknowledged that in the past the SOA used training manuals advocating coercive interrogation methods and extra-judicial executions, and over time SOA alumni have been linked to many of Latin America's most heinous human rights atrocities, from widespread torture to massacres of young children.

Congress renamed the SOA the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001; since then thousands of foreign soldiers have journeyed to Fort Benning for training. However, with political change currently sweeping through Latin America, several countries have cut ties with the SOA in recognition of its notorious track record. "Many of the governments here in South America are now made up of people who were thrown in prison and tortured in the past," says Lisa Sullivan, a Caracas-based organizer for SOA Watch, "so they're taking a very different look at the role of their armed forces and their military relations with the United States."

In 2004 Venezuela stopped sending soldiers to the SOA, and earlier this year, Uruguay and Argentina followed suit. Roy Bourgeois, the Catholic priest who founded SOA Watch, catalyzed those developments through meetings with government officials in Caracas, Montevideo and Buenos Aires. Throughout 2006 Bourgeois has continued to make his case against the SOA in the capitals of Latin America, from a sit-down with President Evo Morales of Bolivia in March to a meeting with Chile's Defense Minister, Vivianne Blanlot, in August. The activist priest plans to visit at least five more countries next year, including Nicaragua, now likely to re-evaluate its military-training partnership with the United States given the recent election of Sandinista leader and former contra target Daniel Ortega as president.

Meanwhile, local activists throughout the hemisphere have begun to focus heavily on the SOA and US military training, as this weekend's events suggest. "We plan to protest because we want future generations to live in peace and with justice," says Pablo Ruiz, a Chilean torture survivor gearing up for the Santiago demonstration. "And that, to our understanding, will never happen if we continue to allow soldiers to be taught that things should be resolved with weapons and violence, as is taught at the School of the Americas."

More:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/school_of_the_americas

http://www.soaw.org/

Wikipedia:

Participation
In 2004, Venezuela ceased all training of Venezuelan soldiers at WHINSEC.<15> On March 28, 2006, the government of Argentina, headed by President Nestor Kirchner, decided to stop sending soldiers to train at WHINSEC, and the government of Uruguay affirmed that it will continue its current policy of not sending soldiers to WHINSEC.<16><17> In 2007, Oscar Arias, president of Costa Rica, decided to stop sending Costa Rican police to the WHINSEC. Costa Rica has no military, but had sent some 2,600 police officers to the school.<18> In a letter to the Commandant of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), U.S. Army Col. Gilberto Perez, Bolivian President Evo Morales formally announced on February 18, 2008 that he will not send Bolivian military or police officers to attend training programs at the institute formerly known as the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA).<19>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation

[otherlander]

161. But Judi...

He came to power in 1999. That's five years that he kept sending people there. If he's really as against U.S.-type tyranny as he says he is, why didn't he stop sooner? It's not like he didn't know what was going on there.

[truedelphi]

238. God bless Roy Bourgeois and all the nuns priests and

The civilians who have opposed the School of the Americas.

[ozone_man]

136. Either a new one or restore the present one

The Constitution is not perfect, but it still works after all this time. Unfortunately, it isn't adhered to much anymore.

Considering our present fiscal mess, it's debatable whether the FED is Constitutional. Now we see how well having private banks control our monetary policy works, instead of Congress as the Constitution requires.

[AlphaCentauri]

137. Hugo, Hugo, Hugo! our corporate democracy works just fine with our constitution

Listen, WE ARE PERFECT!!!! don't bother telling us what we don't want to listen.

[Pavulon]

138. Who better than a coup leader to give advice...

I mean whoring for oil is a hard job and he has earned a right to his opinion by running a third world nation..

Until someone on his general staff blows his brains out to take his job.

[AlphaCentauri]

146. Yep! a coup leader who did his time in jail and was elected clean clean without corporate money

Yeah! the coup leader who scape Carmona's freedom fighters

[Moochy]

142. Beats Chest, Makes Loud Patriotic Grunts, Insults Chavez

Did I get all of the Jingoistic action items into the subject line?

cuz I'm PROUD 2 B AN AMURIKAN JUST AS LONG AS I AM FREEE!!

Nationalism is a poison, that addles the mind.

[gmpierce]

150. keep on believing

This thread is a great illustration of what is wrong with both the Constitution and the electorate.

A dozen people have all said that the constitution is great - it's just that our leadership doesn't follow it.

In actual fact, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the bill of rights did not apply to the states. Unless your state constitution contained the same rights, you were SOL.

The Fourteenth Amendment tried to make both "rights and privileges" and "due process" apply to the states. In the early 1870s, in litigation known as the "Slaughterhouse Cases" the Supreme court decided what your rights and privileges actually were. In effect, they gutted the rights and privileges clause by defining a half-dozen mostly unimportant items as your "inalienable rights".

The Warren Court was determined to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states and it did so by dragging the Due Process clause through a knothole. It also lead in establishing the Miranda ruling.

The Warren Court mostly succeeded, but most of their decisions were based on criminal cases, (plus a few progressive pieces of legislation that extended the Bill of Rights).

It was commonly said that criminals had more rights than the rest of us and that was somewhat true. The rest of us had no real rights, just the illusion that we had rights.

The Republican inspired myth that lots of criminals were turned loose on technicalities is still a myth. In the real world, the accused are rarely turned loose unless they can PROVE their innocence.

Since the Reagan administration, prosecutors judges and the Supreme Court have been gradually whittling away at Due Process, Miranda, presumption of Innocence and a large part of what you think of as "your rights".

There used to be a legal doctrine that required the prosecutor to prove intent before you could be convicted of a crime. If you jumped out of the way of a car and in the process your arm hit someone behind you, you could not be convicted of assault unless they could prove that you intended to attack the person you hit. Under today's doctrine, if they want to charge you with assault, they can. And they can convict you based on the fact that the person was hit. Your intent is no longer part of the deal. And they judge will instruct the jury that the only thing they can take into account is whether the person was hit.

This crap started long before the Patriot Act. Half the Bill of Rights had been turned to garbage before Bush II even dreamed of using the Constitution for toilet paper.

In several states, you do not have the right to a jury trial - if the penalty is less than a year in jail. And the same restrictions sometimes apply to the right to an attorney. Speedy trial is a joke. Again, in several states, the district attorney can take as long as a year before you even have an arraignment hearing. Then the clock starts running and he gets another year before they have to give you a trial.

And you probably won't find out about any of this stuff unless you are unlucky enough to be accused of a crime - at which time it will be precisely too late.

[Judi Lynn]

156. Tremendous post. Very useful for those who take the time to read it.

Welcome to D.U., gmpierce. :hi:

[bean fidhleir]

164. I'll echo Judi Lynn - *excellent* post

...and welcome.

[Pavulon]

187. Smoke and Mirrors

the reality is that Hugo Chavez is wholly irrelevant to me and you. He sells oil and talks shit about the US so he makes the news.

Economic policy in the pacific rim and europe are important. Regretfully most people are to lazy to inform themselves on things that really influence how they live.

He is like the spears baby, a distraction.

The bottom line is that when I travel to the North East (throw canada in as well) to do business I drive a car, and generally dont worry about the legal system, because I dont break laws.

When I fly to Sao Paulo or caracas I carry a KRE policy from AIG as well as massive civil and personal liability coverage because of the system there. I carry cash to prevent problems. I DO NOT operate cars (AT ALL) or machines ( I sell CNC equipment) without explicit protection. I do not want to be held because someone removes his hand while I am standing there.

That KRE policy will pay to LEO and Kidnapper alike, the line can blur. Any interaction with local law enforcement in Latin America is risky and I avoid any behavior that could lead to it. Traveling there requires a different mindset.

This is not a condemnation of people or nations, but I guarantee if you had to choose between sao paulo and groton, ct to be charged with a crime like death by motor vehicle (not dwi, but an accident where your error lead to a death) you would not have to think to hard.

[redqueen]

226. This thread is also a great illustration of the effectiveness of propaganda

and the power of groupthink.

[bean fidhleir]

157. All you idolators should realize that the dean of US political scientists

says that, though the US Constitution was very advanced for its time, that's all it has going for it. It's highly anti-democratic and, in his opinion, in serious need of major upgrades.

He points out that of ALL the republics that have come into being since ours, NONE of them has chosen to replicate our constitution. Not even the countries like Germany, that had very little choice under the Occupation after WW2. Even though they were under the same kind of oligarchic pressure that the Iraqis are under now, they still dug in their heels and chose a more democratic constitution with minimal built-in power for the wealthy few. Unlike ours, which was actually *designed* - overtly, openly designed - to concentrate all power into the hands of the wealthy few.


Being a computer nerd, the parallel I draw is that our constitution is like the ENIAC computer: an absolutely amazing machine when first made, but a millstone around our necks now: low capacity, expensive as hell to run, always breaking down, controlled by a priesthood that doesn't listen to us, and that never delivers even the answers we desperately need let alone the answers we want.

[Pavulon]

165. We did a pretty good job with Japan's their GDP

makes that of Venezuela's look like a rounding error. They are not a petro state.

[WriteDown]

170. Made me chuckle...

Good way of putting it.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

172. The Constitution works just fine

when you don't have greedy thugs running the country.

[lostnotforgotten]

173. Once Again I Agree With Chavez - The Republicans Have Destroyed Ours

eom

[fed_up_mother]

180. Shut the crap up, Hugo. We're gaining ground with middle voters.

We don't need you to muddy the waters!

[fascisthunter]

185. What We Need is to Follow and Protect the One We Have

but we have tooo many idiots who would rather use it for political expediency and too many voters who enable these politicians to do so. These are the same voters who will take most issue with your comments. Enablers unable to fess up to an ugly and challenging truth.

[Zorra]

188. Thomas Jefferson: "The central bank is an institution of the most deadly

hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

We may not need a new Constitution, but a few amendments stomping on banks and corporations would go a long way toward protecting us from these financial terrorists that repeatedly blow up our economy, causing enormous damage and suffering.

[tama]

202. Hugo and Jefferson

would get along well.

[happydreams]

206. Sorry Hugo....

You give Americans to much credit for reading comprehension. Your call for a new constituent assembly was grossly misunderstood by our learning impaired adults to mean you wanted to throw out the originalconstitution.

It is obvious that you were talking about addressing the issue of concentrated wealth which the Founding Fathers never got around to doing.






"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people." Abraham Lincoln Speech, Illinois Legislature, January, 1837.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

215. OK, that was idiotic.

I like the guy but damn, couldn't he pipe down the hyperbole? It gets old.

[EFerrari]

244. He's not trying to poke at you but at Bush.

If you read carefully, he never aims this stuff at the American people but at BushCo. That gets lost in translation or something.

[UndertheOcean]

216. The USA is a one man show like Venzeuala

Changing the constitution is nearly impossible , and that's a good thing.

That's a foot in mouth comment from el commandante

[Vidar]

217. We need a revolution, but it's not going to happen.

[subsuelo]

230. nearly everything Chavez says is right

anyone else notice that?

[slackmaster]

236. What an assclown

:nuke:

[defendandprotect]

247. Founders recommended a revolution ever 20 years ....

capitalism and democracy are not synonymous --

time to move on to democratic socialism ...

[jzodda]

251. what good is a piece of paper if you don't uphold its ideals

We don't need a new one, we need to start upholding the one we have instead of letting people corrupt it.