Venezuela Votes No On Chavez Forever

[Religious Dick]

Venezuela Votes No On Chavez Forever
CARACAS, Venezuela, Dec. 3, 2007
(CBS/AP) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suffered a stinging defeat in a vote on constitutional changes that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely.

Chavez called it a "photo finish" immediately after the results were announced. Tibisay Lucena, chief of the National Electoral Council, announced early Monday that voters defeated the proposed constitutional changes by 51 percent to 49 percent.

Lucena also noted that voter turnout was just 56 percent.

The referendum on constitutional changes was a critical test for a leader bent on turning this major U.S. oil provider into a socialist state.

The proposed constitutional changes would have created new forms of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map, permit civil liberties to be suspended under extended states of emergency and allow Chavez to seek re-election indefinitely. Otherwise, he cannot run again in 2012.

While opponents worried about Chavez becoming what some described as an "elected dictator," backers of the proposed constitutional changes had argued that they could help Chavez to deepen grassroots democracy and more equitably spread the wealth.

Chavez himself had appeared confident as the first ballots were cast.

"I'm very sure that everything is going to go very well," Chavez said after voting, holding his newborn grandson in his arms. "We're going to accept the results, whatever they are."

The Venezuelan president is an admirer and close ally of Cuban President Fidel Castro and an outspoken critic of President Bush, who Chavez likened to the devil in a jaw-dropping speech last year at the United Nations.

More recently, Chavez has said that those who resist his socialist agenda are pawns of the White House.

During the run-up to the election, Chavez also accused the U.S. government of plotting to thwart the legitimate victory he predicted.

Sen. Carl Levin, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, denies any U.S. attempt to undermine Chavez. "We're not seeking to destabilize him," said the Michigan Democrat, in a CNN interview. "His policies, his efforts at dictatorship, to amend the constitution so he can stay there for life, that is what's destabilizing Venezuela, not our policies."

Casting his ballot, Chavez called the electronic voting system "one of the most modern in the world, one of the most transparent in the world."

According to Venezuela's electoral council, the election was observed by about 100 electoral observers from the United States and 38 countries in Latin America and Europe. Absent were the Organization of American States and the European Union, which have monitored past votes.

Chavez, 53, is viewed by his supporters as a champion of the poor who has redistributed more oil wealth than any other leader in memory.

Previous to the election, he had said that he would stay in office only as long as Venezuelans keep re-electing him. He also said, however, that he might be on the job until the year 2050, when he would be 95 years old.

Many Chavez supporters say he needs more time in office to consolidate his unique brand of "21st century socialism," and praise other proposed changes such as shortening the workday from eight hours to six, creating a social security fund for millions of informal laborers and promoting communal councils where residents decide how to spend government funds.

More than 16 million Venezuelans were registered to vote, including some living abroad who cast ballots at embassies in places from Nicaragua to Germany.


? MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/03/world/main3564617.shtml

[Plane]

According to Venezuela's electoral council, the election was observed by about 100 electoral observers from the United States and 38 countries in Latin America and Europe. Absent were the Organization of American States and the European Union, which have monitored past votes.

Is this gang availible next year?

[Michael Tee]

Huge and unexplained failure to mobilize the popular vote.?  Or U.S. sabotage of the elections?  Only time will tell.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Chavez didn't manage to get out the vote this time, with under 60% of the electorate voting, he lost by less than one percent.

If I were a Venezuelan, I would have voted against this one, as it gave the president too much power. Venezuela had its last strongmen dictator way back in the 1950's, Perez Jimenez. Since then, there have been alternating corrupt elected governments of the Accion Democratica and COPEI (Christian Democrat) parties, until Chavez came along.

Under the proposed constitution, the President could split states, declaring portions of them "security zones" and naming their governors. Not a good idea. Chavez doesn't seem to be progressing on Venezuela's major problem, the inability of a huge and very fertile country to feed itself. There is no reason why Venezuela should import food, but it does.

One problem is that much of the best cropland is used to raise cows for US burger chains. Another is that Venezuelans do not like to be farmers, because there are no amenities, like electricity and roads, in the rural areas.

[Michael Tee]

<<One problem is that much of the best cropland is used to raise cows for US burger chains. Another is that Venezuelans do not like to be farmers, because there are no amenities, like electricity and roads, in the rural areas.>>

Sometimes the market does regulate for the best.  Cuba had a similar problem before the Revolution - - a potentially rich agricultural sector that should have been able to feed itself but could not, because the best farmland was used to grow sugar cane for the U.S. market, while food for the people had to be imported.  Fidel at first tried to turn it around with a more diversified agriculture but  in the end, as Cuba came to depend on Russian support to counteract the U.S. boycott, the Russians wanted payment in kind and the most efficient generator of payment commodities were the canefields -- so Cuba reverted to a monoculture agriculture, despite Fidel's best intentions.

It might be that if Venezuela is generating through its oilfields and cattle ranches the capital to pay for food imports, then it is in fact utilizing its resources most efficiently and for the maximum benefit of its people.  I'd be more concerned about putting the cattle ranches and the oil fields into the public sphere so that ALL the profits go to the people, rather than trying to convert the ranches into diversified agricultural uses merely to be self-sufficient in food.  Although I guess for national security reasons, one can never be totally oblivious to the need for self-sufficiency.  Maybe the answer is to convert just enough cattle ranches to diverse crops to ensure self-sufficiency on a war-time footing and use the rest to generate foreign exchange.

[Plane]

Centrally planned economies fail.

Over and over, with no one ever realizing that the central planning is the mistake.

If the Canadian Government came to you and told you that your business needed to be run completely differently than the way you know how , would they be likely to improve it much?

Farmers benefit a lot from education and the Extention service is one of our national strengths.

But ordering farmers around demoralizes them .

[Michael Tee]

<<If the Canadian Government came to you and told you that your business needed to be run completely differently than the way you know how , would they be likely to improve it much?>>

More to the point, why would they tell me I need to run it any differently than I do?  And what if they came to me with some GOOD ideas? Why is that so totally impossible?  I suppose in your eyes, good ideas can only come from private banking, World Bank and IMF experts, whose brilliant advice seems to have landed the Third World in an endless cycle of poverty and debt.  Or maybe Deloitte or McKinsey & Co., whose advice must be practically infallible. 

I think your faith in the efficacy of private enterprise over government is absolutely bizarre.  There is no objective standard of measurement for it, you just seem to be able to dredge up example after example of government failures (or alleged failures) while ignoring every single example of private enterprise failure.

<<Farmers benefit a lot from education and the Extention service is one of our national strengths.>>

I think what your farmers benefit most from is government subsidies.

<<But ordering farmers around demoralizes them .>>

Well, think how demoralizing it must be for perverts to be ordered around by the government all the time - - "Quit walking around and exposing yourself!"  "Stop masturbating on the bus!"   "No, you CAN'T phone up that schoolgirl and ask her to lick your . . . "   I tell ya what - - let's just have the government stop telling everybody what to do all the time.  It's demoralizing.  Let the farmers do whatever they want.  Raise ten thousand hogs per half-acre.  Import Asian long-horn beetles to raise and sell to science labs.  Shoot triple hormone doses to fatten the livestock faster.  Shoot, farmers are GOOD guys, why are we demoralizing them?

[Plane]

More to the point, why would they tell me I need to run it any differently than I do?  And what if they came to me with some GOOD ideas?

It is very unlikely. Much more likely they would have an unworkable idea and such an arrogant attiude that you would be entirely unable to explain why it would not work.

Really , we are talking about a business that you have been in for many years , you really think a guy like me can make it better by makeing you do it diffrently?

[Michael Tee]

<<It is very unlikely [that if government came to interfere in my business, they would interfere with good ideas and not bad ones.] Much more likely they would have an unworkable idea and such an arrogant attiude that you would be entirely unable to explain why it would not work.>>

Well, I'm kind of fascinated with your preconceived notion (some would call it prejudice) that the government, if minded to interfere in my business, would be more likely to interfere by pushing bad ideas on me than by pushing good ideas.  Why can't government hire brains same as private enterprise does?  I deal with government and I don't see them as a bunch of dopes.  They're like private businesses, a whole range of intellects and abilities.  I suppose you think if some guy from McKinsey & Co. came to my office to tell me how to run things, everything out of his mouth would be gold and everything out of the government adviser's mouth would be crap.  Sorry, plane, but it's just not like that in real life.

<<Really , we are talking about a business that you have been in for many years , you really think a guy like me can make it better by makeing you do it diffrently?>>

I'd listen respectfully to anything you had to say, to anything the government had to say and to anything that McKinsey & Co. had to say.  Why would I automatically have to believe that any one of you was full of shit?

[Plane]

<<It is very unlikely [that if government came to interfere in my business, they would interfere with good ideas and not bad ones.] Much more likely they would have an unworkable idea and such an arrogant attiude that you would be entirely unable to explain why it would not work.>>

Well, I'm kind of fascinated with your preconceived notion (some would call it prejudice) that the government, if minded to interfere in my business, would be more likely to interfere by pushing bad ideas on me than by pushing good ideas.  Why can't government hire brains same as private enterprise does?  I deal with government and I don't see them as a bunch of dopes.  They're like private businesses, a whole range of intellects and abilities.  I suppose you think if some guy from McKinsey & Co. came to my office to tell me how to run things, everything out of his mouth would be gold and everything out of the government adviser's mouth would be crap.  Sorry, plane, but it's just not like that in real life.

<<Really , we are talking about a business that you have been in for many years , you really think a guy like me can make it better by makeing you do it diffrently?>>

I'd listen respectfully to anything you had to say, to anything the government had to say and to anything that McKinsey & Co. had to say.  Why would I automatically have to believe that any one of you was full of shit?

Becaue I would make you do it the standard way, if you already had a better idea I would be deaf to it.
We are ot talking about reasonable regulation , or anything hashedout in a legeslature via hard debate and public input.
We are talking about central planning and the imposition of ignorance.

Imagine I am the case worker you get , I have worked for the government more than thirty years and I know whereof I speak.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Venezuela does not produce enough food, because the lands is underutilized, and there are few farmers. This is because people refuse to move out to the tropical hinterlands because they have no electricity, potable water or healthcare there. There are a host of nasty tropical diseases that the US does not have to deal with: malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, chagas disease, and really nasty parasites. Costa Rica has surmounted these problems and grows enough food plus quite a bit for export, and Venezuela could do the same.

Cuba does not seem to produce enough food. Lately, they have imported sugar, of all things. Of course, the average Cuban uses about five times as much sugar as any American.

Every country on the planet has plans for the future. The problem is not in making the plans, but in imposing those plans by law.  Of course, when Cargil, Bunge y Born,or  ADM or Perdue tells farmers exactly how to produce foodstuffs, this can be just as limiting. They can'rt arrest and jail farmers, but they can f=drive them off the land.

[Michael Tee]

<<Becaue I would make you do it the standard way, if you already had a better idea I would be deaf to it.>>

But there are plenty of small businessmen and women who have been operating in a sub-standard way.  To them, a guy who shows them the standard way is a godsend.  They could be blind to opportunities that are theirs for the asking.

<<We are ot talking about reasonable regulation , or anything hashedout in a legeslature via hard debate and public input.

<<We are talking about central planning and the imposition of ignorance.>>

I actually don't think Canada has - - or ever had - - "central planning."  According to Jack Welch's books, central planning was fairly common in some American corporations and he became the advocate of decentralization.  Proving to me that business can be just as guilty of error as government.  You might say that private-sector errors are more quickly self-detected and corrected, but the other side of the coin would be that they are too quick to jettison valid policies rather than to stay the course and make the necessary corrections along the way.

<<Imagine I am the case worker you get , I have worked for the government more than thirty years and I know whereof I speak.>>

I don't say all government case workers are uniformly bad or uniformly good.  They're human beings with all the standard variations that entails and it's the luck of the draw which one I would get.  I can't imagine that there is no businessman anywhere in America who could not be helped in some way by your input, just as I can't imagine that there are no American businesses which could not be harmed in some way by some smart-ass kid working for McKinsey & Co. making his or her recommendations with the best of intentions.

[sirs]

Leave it to Tee to conclude that any election that doesn't go his way of support is undoubtedly due to American interferrence, if nit out & out "stealing", while any election that produces his desired result is undoubtedly the will of the people, and pure of any wrong doing, shenanigans, fraud, coercion, or criminal intervention

[Michael Tee]

<<Leave it to Tee to conclude that any election that doesn't go his way of support is undoubtedly due to American interferrence, if nit out & out "stealing", while any election that produces his desired result is undoubtedly the will of the people, and pure of any wrong doing, shenanigans, fraud, coercion, or criminal intervention>>

Since you have obvious problems in reading for comprehension, I'll post my words again - - verbatim.  In red.  Underlined.

Huge and unexplained failure to mobilize the popular vote.?  Or U.S. sabotage of the elections?  Only time will tell.

Now honestly, does that sound like I "concluded" anything?

[sirs]

Why would "U.S. Sabatoge" even be an option, if it wasn't one that wasn't being seriously considered by yourself??  And your other option is that not enough people went out to vote themselves the opportunity of a running dictator?  Your predisposed ideology of how bad America is and how good Communist/Socialists who rail against America are, is all over your post, Tee