King Juan Carlos of Spain is the greatest champion of democracy in the past 50 years

[many a good man]

I am as anti-monarchical as they come, but I truly adore King Juan Carlos of Spain. He is solely responsible for Spain becoming a democratic society following decades of fascism under Generalissimo Francisco Franco, fascism that was supported and upheld by the US. Following Franco's death the King surprised everybody, not least the fascists, by throwing his support behind democratic elections. A few years later he stood up to an attempted coup by the fascist military and preserved democracy.

DUers who slander his name are showing the world their ignorance.

Juan Carlos has always been a paragon of dignity and virtue so his recent comments to Chavez at the Ibero-American meetings are very much out of character. That tells me Chavez was totally out of order and totally rude. Chavez enjoys poking his thumb in the eye of the powerful, but he isn't doing anyone any favors. Both Zapatero and Aznar are the sons of leaders of the awful civil war that pitted the fascists against liberals. Zapatero and the King know this is not a game. They know this is a matter of life and death for generations of people.

Chavez pumps up his ego by speaking without thinking and taking cheap shots at others, with no consideration of what the consequences might be. I support the aims of the Bolivarian revolution and what Chavez is trying to do in Venezuela, but his ego is out of control and he continues to make a fool out of himself time after time. His behavior is destructive to the aims of the revolution and makes it more and more difficult to support him.

[doublethink]

1. Likewise ......

DUers who slander Hugo Chavez name are showing the world their ignorance. n.t. Peace.

[rockymountaindem]

2. You'd better don your asbestos suit

I'm inclined to agree with you about Juan Carlos however because I've read several books on the Spanish Civil War, and although I haven't studied post-Franquist Spain, I know as well as you that the King was supposed to be the fascists' best friend as he was personally tutored by Franco. So, the fact that Spain is a democracy today is all I need to know about how far he defected from his supposedly pre-determined political ideology.

[July]

54. Post-Franco, Juan Carlos was PERSONALLY instrumental in quashing a coup attempt.

For that reason, among others, he is well-regarded by Spaniards.

When armed military leaders took over the parliament in a coup attempt (I think the year was 1980) and claimed they were taking control in Juan Carlos's name, he spoke out to deny that they were doing so with his endorsement and thus defused the situation.

It was a real crisis, with the general leading the attempt shooting his gun into the air IN the parliamentary chamber, and with the elected representatives cowering under their seats (with two exceptions, including one elderly general who held onto a seat bank while the military tried to knock him down -- stunning example of bravery).

This moment is well-known (and can be viewed, as the moment was televised) in Spain. It is one of many reasons Juan Carlos is respected by most Spaniards.

Though it is a single dramatic incident, Juan Carlos has shown since becoming king that he rejected the tutelage provided to him by Franco's people when he was recognized as the future king by Franco. In fact, it came out in recent years that he had had secret meetings with supporters of democracy in Spain while under that tutelage. He has supported democracy in Spain for many years, using his role as the monarch to do so, ironic as that may seem.

[RufusTFirefly]

3. Democracy?! He's a KING for cryin' out loud!

He inherited his power through Spain's law of succession not through the will of the Spanish people. Chavez has been elected. Multiple times. Surely you can appreciate the difference.

[MADem]

6. You're not aware of his role in the government of Spain, I see. At ALL. Apparently. NT

[RufusTFirefly]

33. Apparently not. Thanks for the education.

Now please call me King Rufus from now on.

[Garbo 2004]

7. As Franco's successor & heir to throne he gave up power in favor of a democratically elected gov't.

[bbinacan]

8. He gave up his powers

in 1978. He is now just a figure head.

[many a good man]

10. Indeed. And that makes it all the greater.

He is beloved by all the people who support democracy in Spain and is seen as a traitor by many conservatives.

I think all liberals and progressives need to study history more deeply. You'll be surprised at the irony and paradoxes.

Try this one as an example: every successful revolution in world history has been led by the middle or upper classes (not the lower classes).

[Selatius]

19. Venezuela may or may follow that rule.

Generally, people in the bottom classes don't possess the capital or the political clout or political leadership necessary to institute reforms. Being disenfranchised from the pre-existing political system, it is generally difficult to acquire the political experience necessary to lead a successful campaign. As a result, change does not come unless there is a supportive middle class or there is a situation where the majority of the people are not of the middle class, which necessarily tends to generate resentment and anger and the motivation necessary to exert political will.

With a nation such as Venezuela, the middle class could realistically account for roughly 30 percent of the population and the elite another percent or two. In practical terms, Venezuela has no real middle class or a very atrophied one, and supporters and opponents of Hugo Chavez generally split along class lines. The rest of the country resides in the bottom, and the real power the bottom possesses is the number of votes they can bring to bear, much to the chagrin of oil and business interests in Venezuela, and the level of community-level organization of pro-Chavez supporters, which tends to be high.

[progressive_realist]

35. I'd be careful of putting the word "every" in bold font

As at least one counter-example can usually be found for any claim. I submit for your consideration the slave uprising that led to Haiti's independence from France. None of the leaders of the revolt, Toussaint Louverture, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, Jean François, Henri Christophe, et al, could be considered middle or upper class without serious distortion of the facts (all but Toussaint were slaves; Toussaint, while a freedman, was still a second-class citizen).

Not that this disproves the overall rule.

[Dorian Gray]

50. Do you know

that Juan Carlos was a champion of democracy? Which was against his own "interests."

Seriously, I find it amusing that those who hold Chavez in such high esteem are having such knee-jerk reactions to
Juan Carlos. He's a King in name only. He holds no power to make laws in Spain.

[bbinacan]

4. Thanks for the education.

I know very little about Juan Carlos. And your comments about Chavez are right on target.

[MADem]

5. I agree, and I lived under Franco, so I can appreciate the difference!

Juan Carlos IS a class act. I doubt he'd be easily provoked, either. Chavez's own hubris is poisoning him. He really thinks he is the heir to Castro, but when they put Castro in the box, Raul and Company just might tell the boy "Fuck You."

Especially if Fidel hangs on long enough for Cuba to start making money off their own newly-discovered petroleum assets, or if they find a way to partner with someone who doesn't want to 'snuggle' quite so much.

[Gabi Hayes]

9. you sound like quite the expert. guess you 'missed' this

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Analysis_Venezuela_to_boost_Cuban_oil_999.html

Cuba and Venezuela have signed agreements aimed at strengthening their economic ties, particularly in the energy sector, where Caracas hopes to bolster Cuba's oil industry.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez met with Cuba's interim leader, Raul Castro, earlier this week to sign new accords, among them a pledge to reopen the doors of a long-dormant, Soviet-era oil refinery.

Other oil agreements include improvements to Cuba's oil tanker ports.

oops!!

[MADem]

14. Of COURSE they have. I mean, really. Hugo has money, Castro doesn't.

Hugo has expertise. Castro doesn't. And you don't go pissing off the guy who is selling your poverty stricken island nation oil at a DEEP, DEEP discount.

I didn't miss that at all.

But we know how Cuba rolls. They go with the best deal. They're selling concessions to international firms for offshore exploration, but they NEED someone nearby to help them with their nascent petroleum sector.

So no, not "OOPS" at all. Chavez could easily be the cheap date, used, screwed, and discarded, in favor of more stable and profitable entities, like these international players, who are doing the HEAVY lifting and bringing in the big dough to get the ball rolling:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/19/8402339/index.htm

(Fortune Magazine) -- Sometime later this year, less than 70 miles from Florida, a consortium of Spanish, Indian and Norwegian companies will likely start drilling for oil. It could mark the beginning of a Cuban oil rush - one that American oil companies won't be able to join, despite their proximity to the action. ....Call it Castro's revenge. With Cuba's leader sidelined by illness and its economy in shambles, a major oil find - estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey at 4.6 billion barrels, nearly two-thirds the amount in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - could give Havana a new lease on life. "Cuba could be a major regional player in oil," says Jorge Piñon, an oil expert at the University of Miami and a former president of Amoco Oil Latin America.

In 2004, Spain's Repsol YPF found signs of oil in deep water offshore. Last year India's ONGC Videsh and Norsk Hydro of Norway joined Repsol to explore its six blocks. Separately, Malaysia's Petronas won concessions for four blocks, reportedly after seeing fresh data from the Repsol-led consortium. ONGC also secured concessions for two more blocks. In January, Venezuela's state-owned PDVSA picked up rights to four blocks. China also has an exploration agreement with Cuba, and Chinese oil giant Sinopec has been leasing rigs to Sherritt and others.

Venezuela isn't snatching the lion's share of those concessions, are they? In fact, they're just a face in the crowd. And, from the very cite that YOU, YOURSELF provided:

That kind of crude would more than meet Cuba's daily oil intake -- about 205,000 barrels per day -- and provide enough surplus to transform the country from being dependent on Chavez's largesse to a global player on the oil market.

[Gabi Hayes]

16. so what? why would venezuela want to 'snatch' up the concessions?

they have plenty of their own oil

and you 'forgot' to mention the deal in your first post, which wouldn't have helped your position, much, as it's based on something tangible, not your own imaginings

and you just keep on looking into your crystal ball and tell us what's going to happen

based on the agreements already in place, I'll hold judgment on what's happening in reality, rather than my own wishful projections

and if Cuba is going with those other companies, as you say, I predict that Raul, etal will just nationalize them when they get what they want, based on your cheap date theory

[MADem]

23. Because Chavez is a meglomaniac who sees himself as a Messiah. That's why.

He also sees himself as Castro's heir.

I didn't "forget" to mention the deal--it ain't a NEW thing. Gee, should I mention that Castro is ILL every time Cuba is mentioned?

:eyes:

I think Raul will be just fine with anyone who doesn't have designs on the seat his ass is warming, frankly.

[Peace Patriot]

30. Again, I have to ask for evidence. What evidence is there that Chavez is a

megalomaniac or sees himself as a Messiah? And how do you know how he sees himself?

"Castro's heir"? Hm-m. He's never said anything like that, but he has said something to the effect that he is Simon Bolivar's heir, or rather admires him, is inspired by him, keeps his portrait around. If we're going to guess how Chavez sees himself, I would guess that he sees himself more like that--an 18th century "knight," sword in hand, championing the people. But I also think he sees himself as part of a group, a brotherhood of good guys--him, and Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa, and Nester Kirchner, and maybe Lula da Silva. There's a photo of the first three, at Correa's inauguration, where they are all wearing colorful indigenous serapes, and obviously enjoying each other's company. It's a very telling photo, because it gives the lie to this image created by our corporate news monopolies that Chavez is some kind of unique phenomenon, alone on the world's stage. He is by no means alone. When the Bush Junta sent word down to South American leaders that they must "isolate" Chavez and Venezuela, Nestor Kirchner responded, "But he is my brother." And when Rafael Correa was asked about Chavez's remark at the UN that "Bush is the devil"--when Correa was running for president of Ecuador, in the midst of the campaign--Correa replied that it was "an insult to the Devil." Correa had been running neck and neck with Ecuador's biggest banana magnate, at the time; his numbers soared after this comment, and he won with 60% of the vote. I don't know how much this backing of Chavez had to do with Correa's win, but obviously the people of Ecuador didn't punish him for it, and it possibly gained him support. Also, just after this UN remark, when Chavez was running for re-election, two weeks before the vote, Lula da Silva made a point of visiting Chavez for a big ceremonial opening of the new Orinoco Bridge. It was an implied endorsement of Chavez, at a time when the Bushites were particularly angry at Chavez, and trying their best to "divide and conquer."

There is a difference between thinking that you are a hero, and thinking that you are the Messiah. And I see no evidence that Chavez has any sort of insanity complex, and much evidence to the contrary--including the tempering factor of a brotherhood of leaders, leading South America to a better future, the fact that the people of Venezuela rescued Chavez from the rightwing military coup and he owes them his life as well as any power that he has, and some remarks that Chavez has made about the Stalinist dictatorships in Eastern Europe. He seems to be well aware of the temptations of power--on both the left and the right--and said something to the effect that you need power to do good as well as evil. You can't do any good without power. And there is a difference between strength and powermongering. And he's right. FDR has vast political power, but he was no more a "dictator" than Chavez is. Chavez is also a reader--loves to read, reads voraciously--and this points to a open mind, to someone seeking to understand himself and others. I have also seen remarks by people who have met him that he not only talks but also listens, and is very curious about other people. This is borne out also by his early life--he had many friends in the military, and they would often have lively philosophical and political discussions, and he still has such friends.

What do you have, as evidence, that he is a megalomaniac? I don't see it. But I know that that sickness could possibly afflict anyone as popular as Chavez is, and even if it is not a sickness, power can be tempting and can lead to wrong action. But, what wrongful actions has Chavez committed? None that I can see. He has scrupulously adhered to the rule of law, and seems devoted to Constitutional government and democracy, in very provable and demonstrable ways.

[MADem]

38. His behavior. His profound rudeness, when, as a leader on the world stage, he should know better.

His statements that he's made. His "speechifying" for hours--not normal behavior, to hector and lecture your nation in an incessant drone for half a day or more on the radio or TV. His constant fawning over Castro, whom he continuously refers to as his 'mentor' and upon whom he dotes to the point of comedic, absurd obsequiousness (he even pulled the Rudy Giuliani-Judith Nathan "Hello, dear" type bullshit at the closing speeches of the last big shindig he was at).
The way he treats any entity that opposes him, for example: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/31/venezuela.media/index.html

You don't have to commit a "wrongful action" to be a megalomaniac, you know.

He is about to turn himself into a dictator, too, by perverting his own nation's laws to allow himself to rule, forever and ever, Amen. There are many people in the educated sector of VZ who are horrified by this. The very poor, uneducated and disenfranchised see him as a savior, but they also don't view him critically at all, and they focus on the short-term gains they might see as a result of Chavez's bullying, and not the long-term view of his power grab.

I realize there are a lot of people here who have hopped on the Que viva CHAVEZUELA! bandwagon, but I am just not one of them. I've seen his type before. I've lived under his type before. I've seen how it starts and how it ends.

This does not mean that I believe that the US under Bush has behaved well vis a vis Venezuela. Bush doesn't know how to use the power of diplomacy. But frankly, neither does Chavez.

Most people don't realize that the Shah of Iran, at the outset, did a shitload of 'benevolent' things like land reform and nationalization and health care and education to con the peasants, but once he had his hand on the reins firmly, he started to believe his own publicity and behave like a brutal autocrat. Once upon a time, Old Shahinshah was the Santa of Southwest Asia. And as we have seen in the last nearly three decades, that ended badly, and the people were left in worse shape than they were before. The next government pulled the same shit, only they threw all their eggs into the "poor/religious" basket, played the Allah card, and put all that moneymaking land and oil back under the control of the mullahs. It's a pretty sad situation when there are so many people in Iran who would gladly roll the clock back to the bad old days of the Shah, because Iran has only gotten worse. The reason it has gotten worse is because of the last two "Father Knows Best" brutal and repressive governments. It didn't, and doesn't work, in Iran, and I see the same dynamic happening with this guy in VZ.


photo of the Shah distributing land deeds during
Iran's White Revolution

The White Revolution (Persian: Enghelab-e-Sephid) was a far-reaching series of reforms launched in 1963 by the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The Shah had intended it to be a non-violent regeneration of Iranian society through economic and social reforms, with the ultimate long-term aim of transforming Iran into a global economic and industrial power. The Shah introduced novel economic concepts such as profit-sharing for industrial workers and initiated massive government-financed heavy industry projects, as well as the nationalization of forests and pastureland. Most important, however, were the land reform programs which saw the traditional landed elites of Iran lose much of their influence and power. Nearly 90% of Iranian share-croppers became land owners as a result. Socially, the platform granted women more rights and poured money into education, especially in the rural areas. The Literacy Corps was also established, which allowed young men to fulfill their compulsory military service by working as village literacy teachers.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution

It's SS, DD--Same Shit, Different Dictator as far as I'm concerned.

[Judi Lynn]

41. Thanks for the news of the benevolence of the Shah of Iran in his early days.

I've always labored under the impression his appearance in that capacity was the result of a touch of regime change by the U.S.

The United States and 'Regime Change' in Iran
Stephen Zunes
Right Web
International Relations Center (I.R.C.)
August 22, 2007

Though the Bush administration has repeatedly emphasized its desire for democratization and regime change in Iran, there are serious questions regarding how it might try to bring this about. There is, however, little question about the goal of toppling the Islamist government, with the Bush administration threatening war, arming ethnic minorities, and funding opposition groups.

These efforts come in spite of the 1981 Algiers Accords, which led to the release of American hostages seized from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, in which the United States pledged to never again attempt to overthrow the Iranian government. The failure of the United States to honor this signed bilateral agreement has contributed to the Iranians' lack of trust in the U.S. government and overall anti-American sentiment in that country.

Despite claims by the Bush administration that the United States has always supported "liberty" and "democracy" in Iran, the history of U.S.-Iranian relations during both Republican and Democratic administrations has demonstrated very little support for a democratic Iran. In the early 1950's, the last time Iran had a democratic constitutional government, the United States joined Britain and other countries in imposing economic sanctions against Iran in response to the nationalization of the country's oil resources, which until then had been under foreign control. Taking advantage of the economic collapse and political turmoil that followed, the C.I.A. helped engineer a coup against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, and returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi from exile to rule with an iron fist.

Over the next 25 years, the United States armed and trained the Shah's dreaded SAVAK (Organization for National Security and Intelligence) secret police, which emerged as one of the most repressive internal security organizations of the era. Despite claims to the contrary by right-wing critics of the Carter administration, the United States strongly supported the Shah until his final days in power, providing valuable assistance to the regime even as it was massacring protestors in the streets. It comes as no surprise, in light of this, that the revolution that finally ousted the monarchy in February 1979 was stridently anti-American. Furthermore, since the Shah's repressive apparatus had largely succeeded in wiping out the democratic and secular opposition to the regime, it was religious opponents—who survived as a result of the greater cohesion made possible through the mosques—who spearheaded the revolutionary movement. Thus, the radical Islamic orientation of the revolution was greatly influenced by the Shah's U.S.-backed efforts to maintain control through repression.

More:
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2907.cfm

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another great idea from some real tyrants.

[MADem]

46. Well, the fact that Kermit Roosevelt turned up with fistfuls of dollars

and bought off the poor to rally round the Shah, and against Mossadeq, is an entirely SEPARATE entity from the reality of what was the White Revolution.

They're two different political events, that operated in different political spheres.

We backed Saddam Hussein too, for more than a while. And we were with Castro before we were against him. And we were NEVER with Ayatullah Khomeini, and he was Act Two of My Teheran Nightmare.

It doesn't overmuch matter who is BACKING the despot. That's just not germane, terribly.

I'm making a point about despots in general (or TRYING to), using an example I knew all too well, who pull this sort of shit regardless of whether it's Uncle Sam or the old USSR or, in the case of North Korea, CHINA, giving them the "Thumbs Up, I got yer back" attitude.

It matters that the despots all seem to do the same thing--start out with benevolent bullshit directed at the peasantry/poor, consolidate power, and then, once the people are settled into a groove, they repress the population, often brutally, by denying basic freedoms like speech, association, dissent, and so on, and demanding excessive nationalistic conformity and sacrifice that often runs afoul of standards set by Human Rights agencies.

[Peace Patriot]

58. I just caught up your post, MADem (had to go to work). It's "not germane" that the CIA

destabilized Iran, overthrew their democracy and their elected president, and installed the horrible Shah?

I think it's very germane. I think I understand your point that, U.S.-backed, or not U.S.-backed, dictatorship is bad. The Shah was bad. The Ayatollah is bad (although I happen to think not as bad). But WHY were the Iranians--a potentially progressive people--driven into the arms of the mullahs? The germaneness of the U.S. installation of a friendly dictator over the Iranians is that THAT is what causes them to hate us and fear us now, and THAT is what caused them to fall back on religious communalism as a refuge and a protection.

The absolute wonder of what is happening in South America--not just in Venezuela, but in Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, and throughout the continent--is that U.S. bloody interference and brutal economic domination is being followed by a renaissance of DEMOCRACY.

And all these jittery-kneed fears and projections onto Hugo Chavez ignore that overwhelming fact. Chavez is part of a social justice movement that stretches across a continent. He is not alone. There are many other leaders of this peaceful, democratic movement, and it is supported by millions and millions of people. And another thing that is ignored is the Venezuelan voters themselves. This is a people who poured into the streets in the tens of thousands, to stop a rightwing military coup against the elected Chavez government, and the first thing on their lips was not about their kidnapped president; it was, "What about our CONSTITUTION?"*

Smart people. Millions of them. With awesome grass roots organization. They put us to shame. They really do. And it is utterly disrespectful of them to presume, a) that Chavez would dare to "dictate" to them, and b) that they would put up with a "dictator."

You may not like Chavez's style. You may not like his bluntness. But you have got to understand that Chavez has been ELECTED, repeatedly, by increasing margins, in highly transparent elections. There is absolutely no resemblance between him and the Shah of Iran, or the Ayatollah, or any other dictator. You might as well say that FDR was a dictator! FDR ran for and won FOUR terms as president of the U.S., and died in office in his fourth term. He was a "president for life"! Why? Because the people WANTED HIM TO BE. Was he very powerful? Yes, indeed. Did the rightwing call him a "dictator"? Yes, they did. His style was different from Chavez's, but the substance is the same--recovery from economic devastation caused by the robber barons and the rich. You need strength for that. You need power. You need the president to DICTATE, in some ways. The rightwing called taxes tyrannical. They called Social Security tyrannical. They called FDR's plan to "pack the Supreme Court" tyrannical. They called government-provided jobs tyrannical. They called everything FDR did tyrannical, communist, dictatorial, "buying" the love of the poor, a buffoon--with his long cigarette holder, and his cocky head and his gabby press conferences--an idiot (the "ruination of America"), an asshole and worse. He got the same treatment that Chavez is getting--from the rich and the corporate.

And all of it was B.S. If democracy is going to work, you can't have a few people being very, very rich, with millions of people unemployed, homeless, living in shacks, living in cars, chronically hungry, their children's brains starved of proper nutrients, dying of exposure, driven off their farmlands, and losing hope. You have GOT to change this situation. You have got to rally these people with substantial help, if you are going to put a good society together, or reconstruct one. And it takes radical thinking, and radical action, to do that. And power. And if that power is invested in a leader by the people--the case with FDR, the case with Chavez, and Morales in Bolivia, and all the others--then it has a good chance of working. One of the reasons it DIDN'T work in Russia and China is that neither country had ANY democratic tradition with which to address the problem of massive poverty. It wasn't really communism that failed; it was society that failed, in both cases. The U.S. , on the other hand, has a strong tradition of democracy, and, in fact, so does South America (and Latin America as a whole). U.S. interference has gravely meddled with that tradition in Latin America, but Latin Americans keep trying. And, whenever they get the chance, they go for it--as they are now.

I don't understand this myopic view that obsesses about Hugo Chavez--who has broken no law, who has jailed no one unfairly, who has tortured no one, who has invaded no one, who has oppressed no one--lord, the rightwing demonstrates against him all the time in Venezuela; they create riots, they throw rocks at the police, they shoot at pro-Chavistas, they organize violent military coup attempts, they collude with Exxon-Mobile and George Bush, and still there is NO REPRESSION, no crackdowns, no tanks in the streets, no mass arrests, no show trials, no purges, no intimidation, not one particle of evidence that Venezuela is anything but a vibrant, functioning democracy. Is he leading them along? He's going to repress them LATER? That's what I keep hearing from those obsessed with Chavez. SOME DAY he's going to BECOME a "dictator."

Well, I think he'll get bonked on his head by the people of Venezuela--and by his bud over the border in Ecuador, and the one down in Bolivia and by the guy who calls him "my brother" in Argentina, and his friend Lulu in Brazil--if he ever does. THEY don't see him as a "dictator" or a threat of any kind. Why should WE? And, really, how dare we--we, the people who have LOST our own democracy to a real dictator?

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

*(Recommended: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"--the Irish filmmakers' documentary about the Venezuelan peoples' defeat of the violent rightwing military coup against their Constitution and their elected president. An inspiring film. Democracy in action.)

[MADem]

59. Of course it is germane to world history, but NOT in the context of this discussion

Look, once upon a time, Shah of Iran was a quiet, introspective lad. Timid, shy. A student. Very serious. KIND. GENTLE. He was smart, too--and he had big dreams for a shining country in southwest asia that would be the regional model.

We saw how that ended up.

Shah started to believe his own press, just like Hugo is doing. It doesn't matter who is backing the dictator, be it China, the US, Cuba, Russia, even IRAN--the dynamic stays the same. Dictators get insulated, then they get shirty, then they get flat-out BRUTAL to hang on to power.

First, you con the peasants. Hugo's latest stunt? A 36 hour work week.

Then, you take away rights. Right to confront your accuser, innocent until proven guilty, right to be charged for crimes--all that will be GONE with a snap of Chavez's fingers come DEC 2 when the vote is taken, and his dumb, yes, DUMB supporters trade a few hours off for their liberty. Chavez will be, in essence, dictator for life, with the right to suspend elections in an emergency--on his say so, and his alone, for AS LONG AS HE WANTS, just like Franco did--and his "reforms" have met with objections by Human Rights groups.

What he is doing is stripping away all checks and balances, AND putting all decisions in his own hands. And the stupid, uneducated people are doing it for a shortened work-week. See, those people who are supporting him are NOT smart. They're dumb, tired, uneducated, poor, and most of all, dumb. They WILL trade their constitution for a shorter work week.

FWIW, the Ayatullah was horrible. The one before this last one wasn't so awful, but the current one can be a total shit at times. It's NOT good. And the Guardian Council are a bunch of corrupt and entrenched assholes.

December 2 is the day. If those measures pass, you say goodbye to Venezuela, and say hello to the Imperial Dicatatorship of Chavezuela.

To take effect, the amendments must be approved by voters in a Dec. 2 referendum. Lawmakers approved the changes Friday, and most supporters of the president support the measures. "We are going to say No!' to this dictatorship they want to impose in our country," Gabriel Puerta, secretary-general of the Red Flag opposition party, shouted from a podium amid cheers from the crowd. "We will fight for our democracy and freedom."

The amendments would give the government complete control over the Central Bank, create new types of cooperative property, allow authorities to detain citizens without charge and censor the media during a state of emergency. They also would abolish presidential term limits, allowing Chavez to run again in 2012.

Chavez -- a former paratroop commander who was first elected in 1998 -- denies any threat to freedoms. The sweeping changes, he says, will help Venezuela advance toward what he calls "21st century socialism."

Hundreds of National Guardsmen and police in riot gear were posted around Saturday's street demonstration to prevent violent clashes between opposition-sided protesters and Chavez sympathizers.

On Friday, students protested the amendments at several universities. Two people were killed and four injured by a gunman during student-led demonstrations outside a university in western Zulia state.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news-1/119416877984390.xml&coll=2

BOGOTA, Colombia - Under a new constitution being considered in Venezuela, the workday would be slashed from eight hours to six, so workers would have sufficient time for "personal development." But while Venezuelans might have more leisure time, the constitution would ensure that President Hugo Chávez could toil far into the future....Venezuela's National Assembly, stacked with Chávez supporters, approved the proposals in the new charter one by one last week and is set to make a final endorsement of the document Friday. A referendum is expected to be held Dec. 2 to allow voters to approve or reject it.

A wide variety of critics, from the Catholic Church to opposition leaders, say the 69 proposals in the charter give even more power to a leader who already controls the legislature, the courts, the state oil company, and, increasingly, the mass media. Opposition leaders also accuse the government of trying to ram the constitution through with little public debate....The government counters that the amendments were amply deliberated. Three rounds of debate took place in the 167-member National Assembly, whose members have been allied with the president since opposition politicians boycotted parliamentary elections in 2005.

...Under the proposed changes, Chávez, who has already nationalized electric and telephone utilities and wrested the oil industry from private companies, would have more leverage in economic decisions. The Central Bank, for instance, would be largely under his control.

http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_7337784?nclick_check=1

[originalpckelly]

11. One man is not a "democratic revolution" and I'd have hoped this would be clear to us.

There was not one Founding Father.

I ask my friends who support Mr. Chavez, why is it that he is the center of debate?

Why is one man plastered all over the political discourse?

Does this not echo the personality cults of dictators in our world's history?

[cali]

12. thank you.

I too, think well of Juan Carlos. The only place I disagree with you, is on his behavior. He may not be easily provoked, but it would have been better had he left the rebukes to Zapatera and Batchelet.

[Kajsa]

13. Careful, Cali.

Behavior is not an "approved" topic among few here.

[Richard Steele]

44. So, the DUer who wanted Mukasey confirmed as Attorney General "thinks well" of King Juan Carlos.

Good to know.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. Do you always base your opinions on what other people think? n/t

[pretzel4gore]

15. if Chavez had sat quiet, we hear nothing about it...

how dare a Spanish king condescend to the leader of lands and peoples which pumped tens of billions into Spain's coffers at the cost of countless millions of their lives! How fukking dare he! The fascists WON the Civil War- does this milk fed twit even remember the 1/2 million Spanish who died defending a legal government which hitler was critical in franco overthrowing? History is bunk, but juan carlos is an unelected, unqualified undeserving jackass- while Chavez puts his life on the line defying the most powerful thieves on earth every day! You talk of games and cheap shots, yet the very forces that make juan carlos a fukking embarrassment whose only claim to credit is that he hasn't kept oppressing his people like uncle franco taught him to- and nevermind that the Spanish people pulled themselves up outta poverty while carrying a huge parasitic colony of aristocratos..the only reason this story is in the light is because carlos told President Chavez to shut up (but imagine the stress Hugo has to put up with! he probably only feels safe holding court!)

[cali]

17. respec tfully, your characterization of Juan Carlos is

inaccurate, but don't let facts get in the way of your high dudgeon.

[Garbo 2004]

18. Not such a bad "only claim to credit" to have dictatorial power handed to you & giving it up

to support democracy.

[many a good man]

20. Por que no te callas ?

Oops! Darn that slipped out! See what you made me do? I'm usually much more dignified than that....:sarcasm:

Jackass? Leftists who shoot themselves in the foot, burn bridges, and turn smart people off by their narrow-mindedness are the real jackasses. Know your history and be be smart enough to transcend it. Don't live in the past dwelling on old transgressions. It is extremely difficult to move forward. There are always some in the "enemy" camp who are looking for an opening to meet you half way. That is how progress is usually made. As I said earlier all great advances in freedom require the participation of at least some of the oppressors.

[Peace Patriot]

21. "he continues to make a fool out of himself time after time." Name two.

Time #1:

Time #2:

And please justify the meaning of "time after time" (many).

What is all this fuss about a king--even a good king--and his little dustup with a boisterous, ELECTED representative of the brown masses that the king's forebears mercilessly slaughtered, oppressed and colonized? Chavez spoke out of turn. The King of Spain told him to "shut up." Hard to heal old wounds? Current problem about oil, or about rich World Bank investors, or Spain's previous regime's support for the horrible war on Iraq? Hard to know. Evidently, there were undercurrents at the meeting that got a bit out of hand, not a lot, just a bit. A little flare-up. And if you are so supportive of the Bolivarian Revolution, I would think you would want to play it down, so as not to exacerbate differences, and contribute to what is already clearly a Bush Junta tactic of "divide and conquer" in South America and Europe.

I remember when Juan Carlos intervened and helped establish a democratic Spain, after Franco's death. I don't, however, attribute it ALL to him--no man creates a democracy all by himself--and I'm pretty confident that the Spanish people would have created a democracy anyway. That was the overwhelming trend in Europe, and a condition for membership in the Common Market, and it has been the desire of the majority in Spain at least since the civil war, when Spain's democracy was overturned by Franco, with Hitler's help. Having a unifying figure like Juan Carlos certainly assisted the process, but I don't think it was determinative. And it rather marginalizes the people of Spain to give all the credit to the king.

I said, "Fuck the King of Spain" in a previous thread. I'm sorry for that. I was just very pissed off at Reuters and other war profiteering corporate news monopolies for front-paging this minor incident, to further their campaign of lies and slander against Venezuela's democracy and its chosen and repeatedly elected president. Chavez and other Bolivarian leaders are seriously, fundamentally challenging Corporate Rule, and U.S. domination, in South America--and they are doing it peacefully, democratically and very intelligently. This is very threatening to "the powers that be," and there are concerted efforts to defame this democracy movement, to demonize its leaders--especially Chavez--to destabilize these countries and to overthrow their legitimate governments. I have been following these events very closely, and I know quite a bit about what my own government--which I don't hesitate to call fascist--has been up to, in league with the worst elements of South American society--rightwing paramilitary thugs, and murderers, and drug traffickers, people who chop union organizers up and throw their body parts into mass graves, and torture and kill peasant farmers and political leftists. The Bush Junta supported a rightwing military coup in Venezuela, which kidnapped the elected president, Chavez, and took him away, and suspended the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts, and all civil rights, before the people of Venezuela poured into the streets, by the tens of thousands, to stop them.*

This is just one of MANY efforts to destroy Venezuelan democracy and to undermine and destabilize Bolivia and Ecuador as well, that haven't stopped. These rather amazing new, democratic, leftist leaders in South America live every day in peril of their lives from U.S.-backed plots against them, the goal of which is disenfranchisement of their PEOPLE. Associated dirty scheming includes efforts to split Bolivia up, so that the rich rural landowners and their corporate pals can control the oil and gas reserves. I don't think any amount of Bushite and rightwing scheming will succeed in stopping the Bolivarian Revolution--its support is much too widespread--but can you imagine what pressures it puts these leaders under? Every time they turn around, there is a threat against them personally, or some destabilization incident with shadowy origins.

A petty spat like this thing that happened at the meeting in Spain, or anyone's personal dislike of Chavez's style or his actually very rare "rudeness" (calling Bush "the Devil" at the UN--which I personally applauded), is virtually meaningless in this context, except for the undercurrents at the meeting (and I don't know what they were), and except for its usefulness--blown all out of proportion--to George Bush, Dick Cheney, John Negroponte, John Bolton, Condoleeza Rice and co.

You want people to applaud Juan Carlos and boo Chavez? Welcome to the DU free-for-all! You will draw out them out of the aether, to call Chavez a "buffoon," an "asshole," an "idiot" and a "dictator," none of which contributes anything whatever to understanding who he really is, or to understanding the people who support him and put him in office, and who revolted against a military coup to restore their Constitution and keep him in office, and none of which helps us understand this extremely important social justice and democracy movement, and its profound impact on South America.

Have at it! Bash him to your heart's content. It will just help further ignorance and stupidity among north Americans, and lighten Bush's load.


----------

*(See: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"--a documentary by Irish filmmakers about the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuelan, which tells you who's really in charge in that country--the people!) (Available at YouTube and axisoflogic.com)

[cali]

22. You write a fairly good post, but personally I find your use of the phrase

"brown masses", offensive- and those are my quotation marks, not yours. I don't know if you realize how utterly condescending such a reference is.

[ozone_man]

24. He writes a great post!

"Brown masses" refers to South American Indians that the Spanish conquistadors treated like sh^t. This was the monarchy.

Chavez is elected by the indigenous people democratically not appointed as king. If you haven't seen it watch "The Revolution Will Not be Televised". I just watched it last week on You Tube.

[Peace Patriot]

26. I was merely emphasizing the racial undertones of the political struggle in

South America--which are very real--and which could have been part of the undercurrent at the meeting. We're talking about the King of Spain, after all, the successor to the Spanish monarchy that colonized Latin America, where a very serious white-brown, European/Indigenous division remains. It was particularly unwise of him to tell a very brown-faced South American leader to "shut up." And Chavez himself may have been feeling uncomfortable in that setting--in a roomful of people who are descended from the white colonizers, at a meeting in the Mother Country.

Chavez shouldn't have interrupted Zapatero. The chair (Batchelet/Chile) should have just gaveled him. And Juan Carlos should never have intervened like that. Anyway, can't Zapatero fend for himself? Why this paternalistic intervention?

I meant there to be an ironic twist to "brown masses." It's not a term I would normally use. I meant it as a general characterization of the thinking of the oil giant CEOs, World Bank loan sharks, Bushites, and rich, powerful Americans and Europeans--most of whom are white men--as they contemplate majority rule in South America, and I particularly meant it as a jibe to corporate shills like Reuters--who speaks for this ruling class--who allege that Chavez is "buying" the loyalty of the poor.

I have nothing but respect--and, indeed, a measure of awe--for the people of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, who are creating this revolution. They put us folks up here in North America to shame, in their devotion to democracy, Constitutional government, social justice, accountability and peaceful change, and in their awesome grass roots organizing, which has often been in dangerous circumstances! And they inspire me to hope that it will one day happen here.

I know that a lot of effort has gone into this revolution--some of it on the part of privileged people, the middle class, professionals. (I'm thinking of OAS, EU and Carter Center election monitoring groups), also teachers, some business people, bankers, doctors, AND military officers, etc. There is a class divide, and a race divide, but that is just a general statement. It is true, but the divide is not uniform. Rafael Correa, for instance--with his nut-brown face--is a U.S.-educated economist. Chavez was a military officer. Of the three, only Evo Morales is really from the dirt poor (small coca leaf farmers). He is also 100% indigenous. And I believe, also, that this revolution benefits everyone--all classes, all races. It is the best thing for South America, as a whole, and it is the best hope for a prosperous future. The rich, rightwing elites who oppose it--and who are in traitorous league with Bushites and global corporate predators--are being very stupid. These few seem to have no idea how lucky they are at the peaceful nature of this revolution. I hope they smarten up and join the revolution--and find out what it is like to live in a just society, where everyone's talents can blossom, and everyone feels part of a good social project.

[many a good man]

28. Booing Chavez

brings me no pleasure, that's for sure. His behavior makes me cringe from time to time because I think he is letting his ego get in the way of the revolution. I agree that most of the scorn that gets heaped his way is undeserved, but not all of it. I wish he would stop giving his opponents ammunition.

My intention for the OP was to set the record straight on King Juan Carlos. I think he is a genuine hero who will go down in history as a great friend of democracy. I don't think the Spanish people were willing to go down the path of civil war again. Even now they are still unable to come to terms with that tragic period.

You are totally right that this spat was petty and does not deserve the attention it has gotten. Nevertheless it does not excuse ignorance. I expect ignorance and hatred from the right, but I hate to see it when it comes from our side!

[treestar]

25. For telling Hugo to "shut up?"

That makes him the greatest champion of democracy in 50 years?

A king? By definition, that is about inherited power. If he were for democracy, he'd give up the throne!

I can think of hundreds who deserve the title of "greatest champion of democracy in the last 50 years."

Just for starters, Martin Luther King, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, etc. etc. etc. etc.

[many a good man]

29. Role of a King in a democracy

Usually the right wing defers to the king out of tradition and ideology. When the king supports democracy, the right wing obeys.

People (the left) support the king as long as he supports democracy. Without a king, the fascist right would be much more scary and unpredictable.

[Garbo 2004]

43. Acually, Juan Carlos was not the direct heir to throne, Franco named him his successor and heir to

the throne. (The Spanish monarchy had been deposed in 1931.) Juan Carlos instituted democratic reforms and a transition to a democratic government, giving up the power he was handed by Franco. The new Spanish Constitution of 1978 retained the monarchy but invested power in a democratically elected government and was approved by a popular referendum, a vote by the Spanish people.

So Spain's a constitutional monarchy along with, for example, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden.

[Dorian Gray]

52. "If he were for democracy, he'd give up the throne!"

Didn't he give up the power associated with the throne in 1978? Isn't that the same thing?

[mrfrapp]

57. No

He still gets to give political speeches, is head of the armed forces, has political immunity, is allowed to tell heads of state of former Spanish colonies to "shut-up" and he generally lives like a king, all without being elected.

[soothsayer]

27. The bastard that owns hiway 69 (insert own joke) that will connect mexico and canada

and enable the evil north american union and the dawn of the amero?

[On the Road]

31. I Don't Associate Juan Carlos's Comments

with the anti-Chavez propaganda that so many people (even here) seem to fall for.

Chavez is egotistical and flamboyant. He has done a good thing in wresting control of the country from the wealthy, but his power has to be balanced to prevent the Bolivarian Revolution from going wrong like the Chinese did. As far as his relations with Spain, he can take care of himself.

[Prism]

32. Thank You For the Clarification

I saw Juan Carlos referenced as a neo-conservative in another thread and wasn't sure whether or not something had happened over the past five or ten years to earn that description.

My understanding of the king is that he was groomed as Franco's successor, invested with absolute power, then cast all of it aside in favor of democratic reforms. Not only did he hand Franco's powers back to the people, but he risked the ire of the Spanish right-wing by working with socialists and communists to bring about the political unity required to give democracy the solid foundation required to take root.

So Juan Carlos has always been a good egg, IMO.

Is there anything outside of this Chavez incident I might be unaware of that could change my opinion of him?

[UTUSN]

34. I don't know/care about JC, just LUERVE that *somebody* told Hugo to STFU!!1

As a Democratic party member in the fullest democratic sense, I am:

1) anti-royalist, anti-elitist, which classes I regard as left-over parasites.

2) anti-Fascist.

3) anti-AZNAR and anti-Shrub, having said back at the time of the FAKE alliance of AZNAR's defying 90+ percent of his country's will and his country's religious leader's will, that Shrub had just hit it off with him because Shrub had to look hard to find world leaders shorter than him.

4) and despite having enjoyed it when CHAVEZ called Shrub Satan and smelling of sulphur.



===========Despite all of these things, I am thoroughly enjoying parasite Juan Carlos telling CHAVEZ to STFU!1


Ordinarily I would Alert on all CHAVEZ threads and request they be confined to the Latin American forum where I would never see them. And fresh from another one a couple of days ago in LBN where there was the usual CHAVEZ flamefest--yet, I just LUERVE this!1

Please, this is in the same vein as my cussing at the t.v. every time Shrub's puss is on it. I don't need the lectures on how unintellectual my post is, how I'm spouting White House and/or M$M "talking points," *or* any other flaming thing that glorifies CHAVEZ.

No, it was NOT miscontrued, was not "softened by tone or gestures." It was, "!?Por que not te CALLAS?!1" meaning "Why don't you SHUT UP?!1"

Just saw the tape on Univision and that's the way it was. As for "tone and gestures" the King-a-ding-ding was PISSED and leaned out from the row of seated peeps to SMACK DOWN Chavez face to face. I don't recall whether he actually pointed at CHAVEZ, but there was NO "softening" AT ALL.

English language accounts have repeated that the words and connotations were words and a tone "used (in anger) with CHILDREN." Actually, if a "king" weren't involved, and this exchange took place in a cantina, the next step would be fisticuffs.


Vicente FOX did the same thing to CASTRO at one of the first of Shrub's meetings, when CASTRO was barred from being in the same place at the same time. FOX had a lower protocol status in talking to CASTRO than the King dude does with CHAVEZ, but FOX used the same familiar, big-footing tone.

King shutting up CHAVEZ: Yes, somebody posted in another thread that perhaps it was something polite, that "tone and gestures" might have "softened" it. HAH!1 I just saw it on Univision, and the King-a-ding-ding was totally PISSED and leaned forward out of the row of peeps to say it to CHAVEZ face to face. Some English language descriptions are saying it was the words and tone "used (in anger) WITH CHILDREN." On the tape, the dude said, "?Por que no TE CALLAS?!" ("Why don't you SHUT UP?!" with the familiar "tu" (te), not the formal, respectful "usted". )

*******QUOTE*******

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/071111/photos_wl_afp/fd45723e5aa671579fa43f92b68ef894



Spain's King Juan Carlos (R) shouts at Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, "Why don't you shut up?" after Chavez interrupted the speech of Spanixh President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero(L), on the last day of the XVII Ibero-American Summit.





A combination photo shows Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez speaking during a speech at the closing session of the XVII Ibero-American Summit (right photo) and Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luiz Rodriguez Zapatero (L)

********UNQUOTE*******

[ShaneGR]

36. I sometimes wonder, in 20 years, when Chavez is still clinging to power....

And Venezuelans are completely isolated, political dissent is stifled immediately, and the Venezuelan constitution has been completely decapitated, will we still see posts supporting Castro? Wait, I meant Chavez.

[Peace Patriot]

37. Enlightenment from the Santiago Times! More detail on the meeting!

http://www.tcgnews.com/santiagotimes/index.php?nav=story&story_id=15201&topic_id=1

I was wondering what the undercurrents were in this meeting--which was in Chile, by the way. I got that wrong (above), was confused about the place; thought it was in Spain because the King was there. This changes my speculation about Chavez feeling uncomfortable in the venue (previous colonizer Spain, with the King present). Anyway, this article spells out the conflicts at the meeting in much more detail, and specifically fills in some blanks about what the spat between King Juan Carlos and President Chavez was about. Well worth reading. Fairly neutral reporting. One important thing that it points out is that Chavez had said something--in his speech--about Spain's previous head of government, Aznar--whom Chavez called a fascist--that Aznar had colluded with the Bush Junta in the 2002 rightwing military coup attempt against the Chavez government. First I've heard of this, but it makes sense. Aznar always struck me as a snake-in-the-grass, and his fondness for Bush, and his dragging Spain into Bush's terrible war, made me despise him. The current head of government, socialist Zapatero, then got up to speak and defended Spain against the charge of collusion in the coup--or I gather that's what he said--and he also argued with Chavez's characterization of Aznar as a fascist (--a rather touchy allegation in Spain, the fascist wound is so near in time). And THIS--Zapatero's denial--is what provoked Chavez to interrupt Zapatero's speech with out-of-turn remarks. It was about the COUP!

This makes much more sense. Zapatero, in other words, was defending Spain's "honor" (re the Coup), which Chavez had questioned. Something of a cock fight--and, of course, that would draw the King of Spain into it. And if Spain (under Aznar) really did have some snake-in-the-grass part in the rightwing coup attempt against Chavez and the constitutional government of Venezuela, or if Chavez believes that it did, that would make it such a personal matter as to justify an emotional interruption, even it was impolite, or at least help us understand it, i.e., make sense of it. It didn't seem to have enough motivation (Zapatero disagreeing with Chavez that Aznar is a fascist--I mean, so what? Aznar is out of power.) But this wasn't about the word "fascist"--it was about the Coup.

Thanks to Judi Lynn for alerting me to this article. It's got a lot interesting stuff in it. For instance, these Latin American leaders apparently had a four hour private discussion (much longer than scheduled), and one of the topics was a proposal to chuck the OAS and form a new Latin American organization without the U.S. Wouldn't that frost Condi's Rice's patootie! She will literally have "lost" South America. Her corporate pals won't be happy.

Also, bear in mind, reading this article, that one of the goals of the new leftist leaders is to solve old conflicts among these states, and begin an era of cooperation and integration (no more "divide and conquer"). So the long standing conflicts about Bolivia's access to the sea--which they lost about 125 years ago in a war--and between Uruguay and Argentina about Uruguay's environmentally damaging mining in a river that borders Argentina, and MORE than they seem. They are symbols in a bigger picture about Latin American countries getting along, and a new strategy in dealing with the U.S. from a more unified position of strength.

[Judi Lynn]

39. The idea of forming a new organization of Latin American countries just FOR these countries,

composed of the same countries seems entirely appropriate.

Here's an article on O.A.S. and that magical touch of _Bush's, which will provide more info. on why they want the U.S. OUT OF THE O.A.S.

Published on Wednesday, June 8, 2005
by CommonDreams.org
Bush at OAS: Same Old "Free Trade" Tune
by Deborah James

~snip~
Latin Americans are turning away from this model of "free trade", increasingly electing governments that represent the needs of the majority, and looking towards alternative models to jump-start their economies and address economic inequality.

But the US still conditions its support of Latin American leadership on those leaders' support of the US economic model. Those that follow a different path are often subject to the criticism of being "undemocratic." So the main foreign policy objective of the State Department during the conference was to create a committee within the OAS to monitor the "exercise of democracy" in the hemisphere. This is a new interpretation of the OAS's Democratic Charter, an attempt by the US Administration to create a mechanism whereby they could criticize governments that have been democratically elected for supposedly "not governing democratically." The proposal was widely rejected as setting the stage for US intervention in the region. It was also seen as a thinly-veiled attack on Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, who has overwhelmingly won three national elections and whose popularity stands at over 70% (according to opposition polls). Fortunately, Latin American governments have decided that the time of the US's domination of the OAS is over, and the proposal failed outright. Latin Americans have demonstrated a firm commitment to democracy, overcoming military dictatorships across the hemisphere in the last several decades - but following the US-mandated "free trade" model is another story.

President Bush took advantage of his appearance at the OAS meeting June 6th in Florida to urge the US Congress to approve CAFTA, the Central America-Dominican Republic-United States Free Trade Agreement. But two decades of "free trade" economic policies that have failed to eradicate poverty in Latin America. "For the young democracies of Central America, CAFTA would bring new investment, and that means good jobs and higher labor standards for their workers," he promised. It seemed a strange argument, considering that CAFTA lacks even the unenforceable labor provisions included in NAFTA. But then he got to the big lie when he argued that, "by bringing economic growth to Central America, CAFTA will contribute to the rise of a vibrant middle class." During the 1960's and 70's, Latin Americans averaged an 80% gain in income per person. Not so with the following two and a half decades, when per capita income grew by only 12% total. That means that for the last 25 years, Latin American governments employed economic policies mandated by the Washington-dominated IMF and the World Bank - the same model as CAFTA - and have grown an average of only .5% per year. After 25 years of privatization of essential public services, de-regulation of industry, and opening up borders to foreign investors, the majority of Latin Americans have less economic opportunity than ever before.
(snip)

..... In particular, about 1.5 million Mexican farmers have been pushed off their land due to NAFTA, devastating rural communities across the country. Families are torn apart as breadwinners migrate to cities, or to the U.S., in search of jobs to feed their children. And hundreds of thousands of US workers have lost their jobs due to NAFTA, the opposite of the false promises of 200,000 new jobs that would be created.

Bush told the OAS meeting that "(F)or the Western Hemisphere, CAFTA would continue to advance the stability and security that come from freedom." But the biggest threat to hemispheric security -- the leading cause of death in the region -- isn't terrorism, it's poverty; lack of access to clean water, enough food, and affordable medicine. So Latin Americans find it hard to believe that the privatization of public services like health care and water distribution, or opening up their industries to foreign investment, will make them more secure. That is especially true at a time when the U.S. government -- with breathtaking hypocrisy - has refused to extradite Luis Posada Carriles, the most notorious terrorist in the hemisphere. Instead, governments that are eager to "deliver the benefits of democracy," the OAS conference's theme, are looking to focus their efforts on eradicating poverty in the region. The Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Ali Rodriguez Araque, commented at the OAS that "240 million poor inhabit our continent, and of them, almost 100 million survive under conditions of extreme poverty. In such conditions, the quality of life is simply nonexistent and, as a consequence, the quality of democracy is simply precarious and uncertain. So much so that there will not be political stability in the region, while these high indices of social inequality still exist."
(snip/...)

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0608-32.htm

[Peace Patriot]

45. The Santiago Times article is far better than most, but still...

There's this:

"Chávez’s comments intended to draw focus to the sharp fault-line between the progressive left in Latin America (led by Chávez, Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador) and the countries adhering to the moderate, neo-liberal model of which Chile is a prominent example."

http://www.tcgnews.com/santiagotimes/index.php?nav=story&story_id=15201&topic_id=1

"...the countries adhering to the moderate, neo-liberal model...". Calling the "neo-liberal" model "moderate" is NOT objective reporting. The neo-liberal model is radical corporate mayhem--looting, piracy, enslavement--that has turned Argentina and other victims into a basketbases, and has impoverished millions of people in Latin America, has threatened the food supply, has privatized and destroyed many public services--transportation, water, electricity, medical care--vastly weakened labor protections (neo-liberalism = sweatshops) and provided insufficient money for education, for helps to the poor, and for forward-looking, progressive projects of every kind. It is furthermore destroying the planet--with ocean-polluting oil tankers circling the globe, carrying raw materials from one country to sweatshop manufacturers in another, and the final products to yet others, while raping the forests, rivers and other natural healing functions of the earth. To call this "moderate" is like calling our war profiteering corporate news monopolies "mainstream media." It is NOT moderate.

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

Just found another problem in re-reading the Santiago Times article more carefully:

"Foxley (Chile) also noted that the Concertaciòn (center-left government) has abided 'a strong opposition that can say what it thinks' – an oblique reference to the authoritarian tendencies of the Chávez government."

The writer treats "the authoritarian tendencies" of the Chavez government not as a quote or statement of the Chilean official, but more as a given fact--or as an assertion of the reporter. How does the reporter know that this is what the Chilean official meant? "An oblique reference...". Right.

No facts, either, to back it up--because there are no facts to support Chavez having "authoritarian tendencies." The few that are trotted out evaporate upon research and investigation.

So we're seeing Bush-CIA disinformation makes its way into the Chilean press. How's that for deja vu?

[Peace Patriot]

40. More detail from AP--for what it's worth. The plot thickens...

Warning: AP is notoriously unreliable on the Latin American left, and especially on Venezuela and Chavez. This is a typical anti-Chavez hit piece. Take it for what it's worth. For instance, they write this: "Chavez, who faces violent protests at home against a proposed constitutional reform package that would greatly boost his power, said the incident had been exaggerated by the media." AP, of course, doesn't correct its goddamned lies about the shootings a few days ago (rightwing thugs trying to mob and lynch PEACEFUL pro-Chavez students--they reported the opposite--RCTV deja vu!), and they don't mention that the ONLY violence in Venezuela street protests has been RIGHTWING violence, nor do they ever bother to investigate what the Bush Junta is doing with our USAID/NED tax money in Venezuela, which they're giving to opposition groups. The general purpose of the Bush-CIA...ahem...AP...is to paint a picture of general political violence in Venezuela against Chavez, who enjoys the support of 70% of Venezuelans and who is running a government that not only protects civil rights--and proposes expanding civil rights (to gays, for instance)--but also scrupulously adheres to the rule of law. There is no general violence or chaos in Venezuela. Rightwing thugs, no doubt paid by the CIA (or Blackwater operatives) throw rocks at police to create an "incident," and, not satisfied with that, go shooting up a campus--and got their false headline, on cue, that it was rightwing students who were shot at. Everybody else in Venezuela (99% of the people) is quite well behaved. Civil discourse about the proposed Constitutional amendments has been going on for months--and, on some issues, for years; the National Assembly voted on the proposals, and now the Venezuela people will vote on them. This process is proceeding in an orderly way, with everyone having plenty of time to voice opinions about it, and everyone free to (obviously). But you wouldn't know that from AP news articles.

As I said, take this article for what it's worth.

They report that Chavez said that the Spanish ambassador knew of the coup ahead of time, and visited and endorsed the phony rightwing coup government while Chavez was still in captivity. Chavez said this in his speech (--which Zapatero was responding to). Later, Chavez implicated the king. He said that the ambassador would not have supported the coup without Aznar's and the king's knowledge and consent.

Another detail, the king stormed out of the meeting room after telling Chavez to "shut up." My gut tells me that King Juan Carlos has something to hide, that maybe he knows something about this (Aznar's complicity in the coup attempt). But that's just my gut. It's based more on my opinion of Aznar than of Juan Carlos--and on Juan Carlos storming out of the meeting. That doesn't necessarily point to guilty knowledge, but it adds to the suspicion. If he had stayed and said something more--and something other than "shut up" (like, "No, you're wrong, President Chavez, and I was in a position to know--and kindly stop interrupting President Zapatero"), it would have helped his case, but he was angry (and, if Chavez is to be believed--speaking to reporters later), nearly out of control.

Corporate news monopoly reporters are like sharks in situations like this--they smell blood in the water. And AP outright lies about Chavez. So, their purpose here is to exacerbate the conflict, which fits Bush strategy like a glove. The main thing this article is useful for, is that it adds more detail about what Chavez actually said (i.e., the ambassador and the coup, etc.) that Zapatero was contradicting. I tend to believe it, because it makes sense--gels with other descriptions, and supplies more motivation to everyone's behavior. The rest of the AP article should not be believed until it is corroborated--and I'm even reserving some doubt about this. (That's how bad AP has been--and Reuters is not much better. Indeed, there is virtually no corporate news monopoly source that you can trust on Chavez and Venezuela.)

[Peace Patriot]

42. The BBC account is only slightly better than AP's.

They don't include the CIA disinformation about "facing violent protests at home." It's otherwise similar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7089988.stm

Thanks to Judi Lynn, once again.

Note on the BBC reporting on Chavez: I heard an acidic anti-Chavez news program on BBC radio a few weeks ago. I really couldn't believe my ears. And I've noticed that they're following AP's and Reuters' lead on very false characterizations of Chavez and Venezuelan democracy in news stories. I think the BBC took quite a battering from the rightwing and from corporate/war profiteer interests after they broadcast David Kelly's accusations that the pre-war intelligence on Iraq WMDs had been exaggerated. Kelly was one of the top British WMD experts, and a UN weapons inspector, who was found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances, four days after Valerie Plame was outed; his office and computers were searched, and, four days after that, the entire CIA Brewster-Jennings counter-proliferation network was additionally outed. (No corporate news monopoly has ever made this connection. I discovered it for myself--the astonishing coincidence of dates of the Plame outings and Kelly's death--and, of course, the thematic similarity.) The BBC refused to give Kelly's name up to the government, and the Blairites were furious, and went after the BBC in every way possible, including its funding. They've been much tamer since, and are doing corporate privatization things like firing lots of reporters.

This severely limits our sources of objective information about Chavez. We should be grateful for www.venezuelanalsyis, which is pro-Chavez, but very informative and well-written, and also publishes some criticism of Chavez. If I were to rate news sources on Chavez on a reliability scale of 1 to 10, I'd give all of our so-called "mainstream" sources a 1 (and some of them a minus 1, and worse--that is, utterly worthless disinformation), and I'd give venezuelanalysis a 9. It gets a few points just for its sheer value as an alternative view, and there is enough substance to their information that you can form your own opinion, if you think the writer's slant is too friendly (or too skewed in some way).

[EFerrari]

64. Both parties in the conflict are playing it down in the press now

after the initial flap.

Each of them got a chance to rally their respective constituencies around them, and both are interested in continuing good relations. The corporate media tried to blow it up out of proportion and it worked for about a minute and a half.

[malaise]

47. A king and democracy?

Please.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

49. Ever heard of the United Kingdom?

Belgium? Denmark? Norway? Sweden? Those not democratic enough for you?

[PVnRT]

53. Don't forget the Commonwealth

Technically, Canada and Australia are under Queen Elizabeth II as well.

[edhopper]

51. K & R

Thanks. I'm tired of the ignorant attacks on Juan Carlos on D.U. from members who have no knowledge of what he did for Spain after Franco.

[Javaman]

55. Read Legacy of ashes about the history of the CIA and you may change your mind.

it's a recently published book (2007) that's based on CIA files release via the freedom of information act.

[BornagainDUer]

56. King? Repeat: "KING"? How does a king become a champion

of democracy? The two are mutually exclusive terms.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

60. By giving up his power to a democratically elected government.

And supporting said government.

[mmonk]

61. This just in. Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

[ShaneGR]

62. You need to understand, a certain segment of DU will defend Chavez no matter what

It doesn't matter what he does, what he says, or what or what is really happening in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is the Jesus of socialism, he called Bush the devil, and therefor anything he says is 100% true, any behavior regardless of how outlandish is 100% ok, and any changes he wants to change Venezuela's government, curb free speech in the press, and hold onto power until he dies in 110% ok. Anything brought up to the contrary is just capitalist propoganda. Welcome to Hugo Chavez land, looks a lot like early Castro.

[cali]

63. It's the hero worship mentality

those people who put Chavez on a pedestal, have the same uncritical hero worship mentalitiy that proclaimed that it was "vote gore or die".