Hugo Chavez is dead. Long live something other than Hugo Chavez's tyranny.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So long, Hugo.

It's something of an understatement to say that I didn't much care for Hugo Chavez. Which isn't to say that I prefer the right-wing plutocratic opposition in Venezuela, which is no better, and possibly worse, than Chavez's left-wing authoritarianism. Suffice it to say that I would prefer a third way, something in between those two extremes.

And perhaps such a third way is possible now that Chavez, and the cult of personality that he brought to his authoritarian rule, is dead. Needless to say, this is a significant historical moment for Venezuela. Will it fully embrace constitutional democracy and individual liberty (if more along the lines of a social as opposed to liberal democracy)? Or will it collapse into strife, the populists and anti-populists fighting over which side deserves to oppress the Venezuelan people?

No, I didn't much care for Chavez, but I wish his country well.

Read more »

Behind the Ad: Mitt Romney and the spirit of Joe McCarthy

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive " Behind the Ad" series.)  

Who: The Romney-Ryan campaign.

Where: Florida.

What's going on: This Spanish-language ad uses comments by Fidel Castro's niece and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez that they would vote for Barack Obama. As The National Memo points out, so would most everyone else around the world. The ad also suggests Obama's policies resemble those of Chavez and Castro:

Romney is targeting the Cuban population of Florida who are the only Hispanics in America he is having much success attracting. President Obama garners nearly 70 percent of the Latino vote nationally, but in Florida his lead is a mere 4 points. The Cuban community makes up about 60 percent of Miami-Dade County’s Republican voters, where the ad is airing.

Separate Cubans out and the president leads with Hispanic voters in Florida 65-32. The connection with Castro is clearly designed to incite memories of the island regime that many Cuban-Americans or their relatives fled.

Romney is so pathetic. Red-baiting in 2012. Imagine. The stench of desperation is in the air.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Media bias against Hugo Chavez

Guest post by Frank Moraes

Ed. note : This is Frank's fifth guest spot for us (in addition to live-blogging the debate with us last night). You can find his first, on the recent 60 Minutes interviews with Obama and Romney, here; his second, on European monetary policy and Spanish austerity, here; his third, on conservative desperation, here; and his fourth, on Romney's Santa phony Santa routine, here.

As for this post, on Hugo Chavez's re-election in Venezuela, I can't say I'm in complete agreement with Frank. I've never much cared for Chavez, and I've got the posts to prove it (see this one, with links to others) -- I've noted his use of "salami tactics" to acquire authoritarian power and referred to him as The Tyrant of Caracas. But I'm a fair-minded guy, and there's certainly something to be said for the abject ignorance of the American media when it comes to Venezuela (as with so much else), and Frank makes a good case here.

-- MJWS 

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor with much too much education. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is really hard to be a liberal, and writes the blog Frankly Curious.

**********

Question: How many U.S. newspapers does it take to predict the Venezuelan presidential election?

Answer: Predict it wrong? All of them!

Maybe it's just because I'm some godless socialist, but I think Hugo Chavez has been pretty good for Venezuela. There is no subject on which the mainstream media are more clearly biased. I get the impression we're supposed to think that Chavez is some evil despot like Saddam Hussein or Charles Taylor. But to me, he seems like a democratic socialist.

I was most struck by this when Chavez tried to get a constitutional amendment to eliminate the presidential term limit. The U.S. media reported that the amendment was to make him "president for life." Amazing. But then, when the amendment failed by a really small number of votes, Chavez was asked if he would contest the results. He replied that he wouldn't because he didn't want the constitution amended unless the country was really behind it. How did the media respond? He must have some evil socialist plot!

Contrast this to President Bush, who at that time had the 50%-plus-one vote strategy — the idea being that the narrowest of margins gave him a mandate to screw roughly half the nation. In this case, who seems like the statesman: Bush or Chavez? I realize that Bush doesn't set the bar very high. But Bush is always treated with respect by the mainstream media. The same cannot be said about Chavez.

Afterword

Before anyone starts yelling at me that Chavez did this or that: stop! I don't doubt that Chavez is imperfect. I remember his infamous "Bush is Satan" speech at the U.N. But that is not what the U.S. media coverage of him is about. Chavez is a socialist. But that isn't it either. He's an advocate of the working class. But that isn't it either. He's nationalized industries and that has hurt profits for various corporations. Bingo!

Further, I really don't want to hear from people who know Chavez only through U.S. media coverage. It is clearly biased. No pretense is made at objectivity. If anyone can send me even to typical he said / she said coverage of Chavez, I will be grateful. And surprised.

Update 1

Via Corey Robin, Business Week writes:

Under Chavez, poverty fell to 31.6 percent at the end of 2011 from about 50 percent when he first took office. Extreme poverty declined to 8.5 percent from about 20 percent over the same period. Venezuela has the lowest level of inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the United Nations. 

But coming from Business Week, this is probably meant as an indictment.

Update 2

Yes! Mark Weisbrot writing in The Guardian: "Why the US demonises Venezuela's democracy." The subtitle is, "Venezuela is about to hold impeccably free and fair elections. Yet the US treats it as a dictatorship." Go read it. It's good. 

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Another salami slice: Chavez regime buys stake in opposition TV network, Venezuela moves closer to total authoritarian rule

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Readers of this blog, or who are otherwise familiar with my writing, will know that I detest Hugo Chavez, the Tyrant of Caracas. Whether it's of the left or right, or any other kind, I abhor tyranny, and Chavez has shown over the years that he is very much the tyrant, however much he may spin his authoritarianism as revolutionary populism.

I have written extensively on Chavez's tyranny in Venezuela -- see, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here -- describing his devious methods of aquiring ever more centralized power as "salami tactics," that is, slice-by-slice. Here's how I put it back in September '07:

[I]t is clear that Hugo Chavez is using salami tactics in his drive to establish so-called "Bolivarean" socialism -- that is, his own national-socialist autocratic rule -- in that country... Sometimes revolution can be achieved without sudden, dramatic bloodletting. There are a number of different prongs to Chavez's continuing revolution, a number of slices. They may be examined individually, but they are best understood as variations of the same, as components of a single overarching plan. The nationalization of industry, the seizure of private property, repression of dissent and opposition, control of the media, one-party rule, rule by decree, and, soon, the removal of constitutional impediments to the permanent and perpetual rule of the leader himself.

The pattern is clear. One slice, then another, and another, and another, with no one slice so grave as to compel anyone to act (although there are courageous opponents of Chavez's tyranny in Venezuela, and there was a coup, if not one worthy of much admiration, in 2002). 

Chavez has a long history of seeking to repress, salami-slice-style, any and all dissent and opposition to his rule, and specifically of seeking to control the outlets of dissent and opposition, particularly private industry and the media. And he's at it again. As the BBC is reporting:

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has said his government is due to take control of a minority stake in the country's main anti-Chavez television channel, Globovision.

The government would then be entitled to appoint a member of the channel's board of directors, Mr Chavez said.

His government has been in conflict with Globovision for several years.

It accuses the broadcaster of supporting a failed coup attempt against Mr Chavez in 2002.

If the plan goes through, the Venezuelan government could be on the verge of becoming an important shareholder in a television company dedicated to criticising its policies. 

To be fair, there is much to dislike about some of Chavez's opponents, many of whom are not democrats but oligarchs who would likely move the country far to the right -- and, of course, most of Latin America has had a long and bloody history of right-wing politics.

But there is really no excuse for what Chavez is doing, even if what he is doing lacks the heavy-handedness of the common tyrant. He knows, I'm sure, that he can't just crack down on, and censor, opposition media. That would look bad and undermine whatever pseudo-democratic credibility he has. Instead, he's worming his way into the key opposition media outlet by buying into it. Once in place, he will seek to control it, or at least to do enough to undermine it as a viable and influential voice for the opposition.

In this case, the Chavez government recently took over two companies, including a bank, owned by Globovision co-founder Nelson Mezerhane. As the two companies together own 25.8% of Globovision, Chavez is claiming that the state (i.e., Chavez himself) now controls that much of Globovision and should be allowed to appoint a board member. See? Another slice. On its own, it's an egregious move but hardly one that will likely arouse much popular outrage -- indeed, Chavez's supporters and government-run media will celebrate it as yet another step in the right Bolivarean direction. After all, it's just a minority stake and all he seems to want is a single board member. What's so wrong with that?

Well, other than the fact that the state is taking over private industry, the move can't be taken on its own. It's part of a larger pattern, of a larger effort on Chavez's part to suppress his opposition and rule Venezuela with an authoritarian hand. And so if it's just 25.8% now, who's to say it won't eventually be 50.1%? And if it's just one board member now, who's to say Globovision won't eventually be fully under Chavez's control? And with that, a significant slice would have been made, all for the sake of the tyranny of Hugo Chavez, which is all that this is really about.

With such salami tactics, there is a tendency to ignore them, or to downplay them, to make light of them, and to fail to connect the dots. But take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Hugo Chavez is a tyrant who is actively seeking to acquire ever more control over his country and to remove any and all obstacles to his authoritarian rule. He certainly seems to be smart enough to go about it in a rather under-the-radar sort of way, and it's disturbing that so many on the left refuse to acknowledge what's going on and continue to give him the benefit of the doubt (if they doubt him at all), but, if you're paying attention, what he's doing is clear and should be of great concern, to say the least, to anyone who cares about liberty, democracy, and the welfare of the Venezuelan people.

Tyrant on Twitter: Hugo Chavez takes to social networking

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the proprietor of this blog, and generally as a blogger who has made a tiny bit of a name for himself, I find myself on a lot of mailing lists. Some are fine (Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's and Rep. Steny Hoyer's, for example), some annoy me (most of the conservative/Republican ones), and some are just downright amusing (if not in a funny way) -- such as that of the "Embassy of the Bolivarian Republican of Venezuela to the U.S.," which, as you might expect, bombards me with bombastic pro-Chavez propaganda.

I suppose I'm on that mailing list because I've written extensively on Chavez, though hardly in a friendly way. I prefer to call him "The Tyrant of Caracas." (See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Yes, it's pretty clear I loathe him.)

Anyway, whatever. I usually ignore the e-mails, but it's helpful, I suppose, to get the propaganda straight from the source, via a diplomatic channel in Washington.

What I learned yesterday is that Chavez is a big hit on Twitter:

Just two weeks after joining Twitter, President Hugo Chavez has become Venezuela's most followed user of the online social network, with over 265,000 followers as of Monday, May 10. He is also amongst the only heads of state that is using the network to directly engage with followers, both in Venezuela and around the world.

President Chavez joined Twitter on April 28, and within 12 hours had gained more than 45,000 followers. Since then, his Twitter account – @chavezcandanga – has gained followers at a rate sometimes exceeding 1,000 per hour. It is estimated that within the first month of use, President Chavez will gain one million followers.

While his first tweets were merely informational, on May 3 he began responding directly to other Twitter users, a practice replicated by virtually none of the other heads of state that use the service. (His first response was to a Mexican girl, to whom he wished a happy birthday to her sister.) He has also taken to responding to tweets during presidential addresses and speeches.

His is certainly a dictatorship with a smiley face. And while he may be popular on Twitter, it's apparent that social networking does not discriminate against tyranny. Hitler no doubt would have been bigger than Ashton Kutcher.

Tough guy Ed Rollins

By Capt. Fogg

Well, what can we expect Ed Rollins to say when he tries to make a case for Barack Obama's weakness? After all, Rollins can't make much of a case for anything but "toughness" in the Reagan administration he worked for or indeed in the party he's long been part of. Not that he will get specific about Reagans testicularity, because if a Democrat had "cut and run" in Lebanon, Ed would still be howling about his effeminate weakness. But one can't take Ed for anything but a low key polemicist, an Ann Coulter without the filed teeth, a Lower fat Limbaugh with less gas content. It's all theater; all a continuing part of the fear mongering the humiliated GOP has been using to make us feel good about giving up freedom and prosperity and distract us from the abject failure of all its promises.

So Barack Obama wants to be loved, says Mr. Rollins. Horrors!

He wants to be loved passionately and daily,

he writes for CNN.com, as though he could know. As though he learned of the president's inner-most dreams through pillow talk, as though he weren't building yet another straw man, stuffed with pot-pourri and dressed in lace panties:

He wants to be loved by the Democrats on the Hill and even the Republicans who have still not given him any love. [despite many having voted for him]

He wants to be loved by the Europeans who have made a career out of badmouthing U.S. presidents and their policies.

Which is Ed's way of placing the blame for calling them all terrorist supporters of the Axis of Evil because they didn't agree about our false assurances about Iraq on them rather than on George Bush's glaring weakness of character.

The real example of searching for love in all the wrong places was last week's lovefest south of the border when, in effect, he appeared to be hugging Castro, Ortega and Chavez who have spent their lives fighting everything the United States stands for,

continues the puffed up patriot, twirling his baton, wishing you could believe that George Bush's Chavez handshake was fundamentally different than Obama's Chavez handshake, which to a prejudiced eye appeared to be a "love fest," and that these banana republic leaders were, by dint of socialistic ambitions, "fighting against everything the United States stands for." The very nerve of showing basic respect instead of making threats! The very weakness of decency and dignity!

Perhaps they do fight against some of the things we stand for, in their own countries, Like Ronald Reagan's death squads and the feudalism of foreign corporations, but as a threat to the security and way of life of our republic, they can't do the kind of damage that's been done by Rollins' party, nor are all the things we've been standing for, like torture, military aggression, supression of dissent, and bombing the bejusus out of innocent civilians, all that worth defending. I hate to mention it, but Jesus lost his life fighting against many things we've wasted time standing for, nor did he think love was such a terrible and weak thing.

Still, Obama should court respect, says Ed, meaning fear. He should just spit on these spic bastards and tell them in no uncertain terms just how many bombs we could drop on their miserable citizens just for voting against our wishes, like we did in Veet-nam. Fear is what we want, not love: grovelling, abject submission to the will of the American President, through fear.

Now, of course, appealing to the basest sentiments of the public with slander and libel and a smorgasbord of false accusations, as the Republicans have done, is really all about wanting to be loved, only it's more pure by virtue of its dishonesty and hostility.

Consider the torture memos. Obama was weak fo releasing them: weak for allowing the Justice Department to decide who to go after, and worst of all, he looks weak, says Ed, to both the people who wanted to hide the information and the people who are our for Republican blood.

Weak if he does, weak if he doesn't. In fact, the courage to ignore the passion of either mob must be weakness, right?

Weakness is the death knell for a president. With 1,366 days to go before this term is up, Obama's got to get tougher or he will be viewed as a personality who reads well from a teleprompter.

So Ed is already partying like it's 2012, and he's trotting out that shibboleth about telepromters to prove his comfort with the most childish and idiotic of his party's giggling points. Pretty weak, Ed, I'm sorry to have to say it.

But that's what America liked about Kommander Guy Bush and Reagan -- toughness -- reading tough words written for him by arm chair belligerents like Ed. I just wish someone would define the concept well enough to differentiate it from pandering, from intransigence, stupidity, dishonesty, unwillingness to learn -- even to make peace.

I just wish politicos like Ed Rollins could explain to me why it's wrong to expose atrocities rather than be grateful to the perpetrators who have allowed us 1200 some odd days of not being attacked by a dozen or so saboteurs -- and why being so pants-wetting fearful justifies taking our freedom, respect, dignity, and prosperity away while he whimpers about Obama being weak.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Barack Obama and American strength

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I wrote on Sunday about the Obama-Chavez handshake, the one that has stirred up so much hypocritical ado on the right. One of the points I made was that it wasn't a sign of weakness on Obama's part -- a sign that Obama is somehow a friend of Chavez's tyranny, a sign that the U.S. has somehow gone soft post-Bush -- but rather a sign of strength.

Yesterday at Slate, Fred Kaplan addressed that point eloquently:

The shockwaves over the handshake might best be explained as a hangover from the long years of George W. Bush's presidency, when dealings with those who disliked us were expressly forbidden, out of a vague fear that such contact might debilitate us or legitimize them. This fear is what was "not helpful." It tended to elevate the standing of a pipsqueak like Chávez; it made him seem more ominous than he was, and it made America seem like a he-man who's frightened by a mouse. By contrast, Obama's insouciant civility, far from appearing weak, strikes a chord of sense and self-confidence.

Furthermore:

As for less-friendly countries like Venezuela, though Obama did not say so, an unthreatening picture of America at the very least takes the wind out of Chávez, who has built power, at home and in some quarters abroad, by waving his fist at America and likening George Bush to "el diablo." And, who knows, it might maneuver Chávez more into our lane, too. "Even within this imaginative crowd," Obama said to the press corps, "I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of... having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela."

Agreed. In contrast to Bush and Cheney and their ilk, Obama believes in America strongly enough not to turn international relations into a simplistic battle between "us" and "them," with us hiding behind our barricades and refusing even to engage those with whom we disagree other to bombard them with self-righteous rhetoric and, literally, bombs.

With Obama in the White House, it is a new age for America and the world, much of which is looking again at America as a source of good. America is strong again, and we all better for it.

Obama and Chavez: BFFs?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

President Obama met the Tyrant Chavez at the Summit of the Americas on Friday -- you know, because both men are leaders of countries in the Americas -- and, according to Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada, behaved irresponsibly by "laughing and joking" with him.

Now, I have been a consistent and persistent critic of Hugo Chavez. As a liberal, I am opposed to all forms of tyranny, whether of the left or of the right. I would rather not have Obama, or any Amerian president for that matter, making nice with, let alone seeming to be a close friend of, a tyrant like Chavez (and you can find my many posts about him here). For example, it would be inappropriate (to put it mildly) for Obama to invite, say, Kim Jong-il over to the White House for some bowling and movies.

But Obama didn't treat Chavez like a BFF, nor even like an ally, he just treated him like a fellow world leader. From what I can tell, which is probably just as much as Ensign can tell, the two men shook hands, smiled, and exchanged pleasantries -- and Chavez gave Obama an anti-American book (which is not the same as Obama agreeing with Chavez's anti-Americanism).

Were they "laughing and joking"? Well, perhaps Chavez saw his meet-and-greet with Obama as an opportunity to bond, but I highly doubt that Obama was being anything other than polite. Steve Benen puts it well:

Chances are, President Obama would like to improve relations with our adversaries, and shook Hugo Chavez's hand out of a sense of international diplomacy. The efforts appear to possibly be paying dividends -- Venezuela indicated yesterday that it is considering naming an ambassador to the United States.

To be sure, Chavez is an odious figure. But he's also the twice-elected head of state of a large South American country with 30 million people. GOP rhetoric notwithstanding, there's no downside to improving our relations with the country's leadership.

This may be difficult for Ensign to understand, but sometimes, U.S. presidents meet foreign leaders we're not fond of. Once in a while, U.S. presidents even negotiate with foreign leaders who are clearly our adversaries -- Kennedy talked to Khrushchev, Nixon talked to Mao, Reagan talked to Gorbachev.

Are we to believe it's scandalous for Obama to simply shake hands -- not negotiate, not strike any deals, not come to any agreements, just press the flesh -- with the Venezuelan president? That a simple handshake undermines the "prestige of the United States"?

Obviously, it doesn't. The U.S. is a strong enough country, and Obama is a strong enough leader, not to let a handshake mean anything more than a handshake. Indeed, to suggest that a handshake is enough to weaken "the prestige of the United States and the presidency of the United States," as Ensign did, is to suggest that America's prestige is nothing but a thin and vulnerable veneer, that America is in fact too weak to be able to withstand such niceties. Conservatives make the same argument in opposing diplomacy with Iran, but it is the complete opposite that is true: Talking to Tehran, like shaking hands with Chavez, is a sign of strength, and can be approached from a position of strength.

Obama didn't prostrate himself before Chavez, nor did the two make an expression of their undying love for one another. They just shook hands. Republicans may predictably try to score political points by making more of that than there was, but there really was nothing more to it than that.

Venezuela voting: The entrenchment of Hugo Chavez's tyranny

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Over the weekend, as you might have heard, Venezuelans voted to lift the constitutional term-limit restriction on elected officials, thereby allowing Tyrant Chavez to run for re-election and essentially to remain in power as long as he wants. It was a huge victory for Chavez, who in December of 2007 lost a previous referendum on this and other constitutional reforms.

As I wrote at the time -- and I have written extensively (and critically) here on Chavez's slice-by-slice acquisition of power -- the 2007 referendum was not about reforming the constitution so much as it was about entrenching Chavez's tyrannical rule: "He threatened to resign if his reforms were defeated, if he was defeated, but he won't. This vote may slow down his 'revolution,' his slice-by-slice coup, his gradual acquisition of tyrannical rule, but he will remain in power and he will try again. And again. Until he gets what he wants."

And, yes, he tried again... and succeeded, winning about 54% of the vote.

"The doors of the future are wide open," he speechified from the balcony of his presidential palace, but, in reality, they're closed. The future is Chavez and Chavez alone -- 54% of voters made sure of that -- who will run for re-election in 2012 and, of course, win.

Of course, it was not an entirely free and fair vote, nor one that fully reflects the will of the Venezuelan people -- oh, sure, observers said it was free and fair, but it clearly wasn't. "Opposition figures... said victory had been achieved thanks to huge government funding and blanket state television coverage," reported the BBC (link above). "In 10 years we have had 15 elections, 15, and this has been the most unequal, the most abusive campaign of all," said opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez. "So that's why you are seeing more propaganda, more campaigning, more advertisement for the 'yes' vote."

As well, turnout was fairly low, if higher than in 2007, with just 11 million of 17 million eligible voters casting ballots. According to the BBC, "Chavez managed to persuade more of his supporters to vote, as turnout was considerably higher than in 2007. One factor was probably the change in the wording of the question, so that this time voters decided on whether term limits would be lifted for all officials not just the president." Not that it really matters about other elected officials. The vote was about Chavez, and he did what he had to do to win, pushing propaganda and getting his supporters to the polls.

Still, as bleak as this all seems -- and I remain a fervent foe of Chavez and his regime (and, weirdly, and not by my own doing, I'm now on the mailing list of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, which spits out predictable propaganda) -- there may be a "silver lining," as Alvaro Vargas Llosa has suggested:

Hugo Chavez's victory in Sunday's constitutional referendum in Venezuela will allow him to run for re-election indefinitely, but it does not mean he will be able to establish a totalitarian state anytime soon.

*****

Even though the opposition was not able to defeat Chavez this time, the referendum confirmed that he still faces millions of Venezuelans who abhor his regime. The opposition obtained 45.6 percent of the vote -- 9 percentage points more than in 2006, when Chavez won his third term. The "no" vote won in five key states and got more than 40 percent in nine others. He was only able to win in one of the five states governed by the opposition -- and lost the state of Merida, governed by a Chavista.

If in next year's legislative elections the opposition obtains similar results, it will control almost half of the National Assembly -- a big shift with respect to the current situation, with Chavez in total control because the opposition boycotted legislative elections in 2005.

Perhaps more significantly, the results confirm that Chavez's base in the major urban centers, where Venezuela's biggest slums are concentrated, has been seriously eroded: His power is increasingly reliant on the more rural or provincial parts of the country.

Well, okay. Good.

The problem is that Chavez is still in power, and will remain in power, and still controls the levers of power, and is more powerful than he was last week. So while there may be cause for optimism -- with the country seemingly trending against Chavez -- tyranny, if not quite totalitarianism, is still the order of the day. And that isn't about to change anytime soon.

FISA revision revisited

By Carol Gee

Surveillance news alerts were most recently published here on May 21. It is time again for an update; and it may be time to say no to Congress again. The White House claims that something must be done to immunize the telecommunications companies who have been assisting with foreign and domestic surveillance using warrantless wiretaps. Revisions to FISA legislation were made in August of 2007 with the passage of the Protect America Act. Current authorities in use by the National Security Agency surveillance programs will expire in August of 2008. The House leadership is currently attempting to reach a deal on new legislation, having rejected the Senate version that is acceptable to the White House.

Leading the opposition, and holding their annual membership conference just this week and last, the "ACLU Says No Deal on an Unconstitutional FISA Compromise" (6/5/2008) from their website. In contrast, it appears that Senator John McCain is again willing to be a willing ally for our current president (OCP), who wants Congress to grant retroactive immunity for facilitating illegal spying on Americans.

"McCain's Ties To Telecoms Questioned After Wiretapping Flip-Flop" is the story by Ryan Singel, (6/9/08) at Wired - Threat Level. This is not the first instance of McCain switching positions in order to appeal to his traditional Republican base. (Glenn Greenwald, as usual, has the complete story on this matter. And one of his readers put together a very interesting FISA Wiki). To quote Wired:

If you've been wondering where all the telecom lobbyists went to lick their wounds after the House rejected retroactive immunity for wiretapping, the Electronic Frontier Foundation says it's found a bunch of them smack dab in the middle of John McCain's presidential campaign organization.

The group suggested Friday that the swell of current and former telecom lobbyists in the McCain camp might have something to do with the candidate's recent reversal on the legality of warrantless wiretapping. His most recent position "reads a lot like the talking points that a telecom lobbyist might employ," writes EFF senior staff attorney Kurt Opsahl.

McCain has long supported amnesty for telecoms who cooperated with Bush's warrantless domestic spying, but until recently questioned the legality of the program. After zig-zagging on the issue over the last few weeks, he eventually settled on a position nearly identical to President Bush's -- that presidential war-making powers trump the law when it comes to warrantless wiretapping.

Earlier FISA legislation news written by Andrew Tilghman - June 4, 2008, at TPM Muckraker, intimates that there may be a Deal in the Works for FISA Law. Time after time, Congressional Democrats have caved in to pressure from OCP and members of his administration. Let us hope this is not the case in this instance. Activists may again be called upon to shore up wavering Democrats who fear being called unpatriotic. To quote:

House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) may have agreed to a compromise on a deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws.

A report in Congress Daily says Reyes is "fine" with the Republican-brokered deal that would "leave it up to the secret FISA court to grant retroactive legal immunity" to telecoms that helped the Bush administration's warrantless conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens.

An even earlier warrantless wiretapping post by Ryan Singel, from Wired - Threat Level (5/29/08) is titled, "Spy Bill 'Compromise' Still Gives Amnesty to Telcoms, But Adds Trappings of Justice." In this instance compromise does not require giving in to the administration's unremitting lies, fear mongering and pressure. Stay tuned. To quote:

House and Senate leaders are still bargaining over how far to expand the government's domestic spying powers and whether to grant retroactive legal amnesty to companies that violated federal privacy laws by helping the government spy on Americans.

But if a proposal from the top Republican from the Senate Intelligence committee is any indicator, telecom amnesty would be all but assured in any final bill.

Last Thursday, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Missouri) announced his version of a compromise (.pdf), which would move 40 or so lawsuits facing telecoms accused of helping the government warrantlessly spy on Americans to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Bond has been working with Rep. Steny Hoyer, from the House leadership, who has been a vocal opponent of telecom amnesty.

Meanwhile other countries made the news recently with their own spy stories. Dandelion Salad's Stephen Lendman wrote (6/9/08) that "Chavez [is] revising, not revoking Venezuela's new intelligence law." To quote:

Over the weekend, Chavez showed his mettle as a democratic leader. He acknowledged “errors” in the newly enacted Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence and will fix them to assure it fully complies with Venezuela’s Constitution.

He gave examples and cited Article 16 that cites the possibility of prison terms for persons not cooperating with intelligence services. It’s a “mistake,” said Chavez and “not a small (one).” The new intelligence services won’t oblige anyone to inform on others. Doing so is “overstepping,” and “I assume responsibility” for the error and will fix it.

Germany is worried that Russia is involved in widespread industrial espionage, according to The Middle East Times story which says: "The German government has accused foreign intelligence services -- blaming mainly Russian agents -- of having spied on German companies."

I will regularly focus on FISA issues raising civil liberties questions. The next post will come Saturday.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Around the World: Venezuela, Kenya, Chad, South Africa, Taiwan, and Georgia

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Quick links to some interesting international stories:

1) Venezuela: Anti-Semitism seems to be on the rise in Venezuela. Hardly surprising. After all, Hugo Chavez is best buddies with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

2) Kenya: Memories of Rwanda. One of the preferred weapons in the bloody post-election clashes among the various tribes -- Kikuyo, Luo, Kalenjin, etc. -- is the machete. (For background, see here.)

3) Chad: An EU peacekeeping force may be deployed as early as this month. Most of the 4,000 troops will be French, but their task, an enormous one, will be to protect about 400,000 refugees from Darfur.

4) South Africa: Finally, at long last, a black coach of the national rugby team. The Springboks will be renamed the Proteas as one of the last bastions of apartheid-era racism is uncovered and reformed.

5) Taiwan: The victory of the opposition Kuomintang party in Saturday's parliamentary elections could mean closer relations with China. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party, which supports Taiwanese independence, won only 27 of the 113 seats, with the Kuomintang picking up 81. Thankfully, most Taiwanese want the country to remain independent.

6) Georgia: Thousands took to the streets of Tbilisi today to protest last weekend's presidential election, which opposition groups say was rigged. President Mikhail Saakashvili, who came to power in 2003's Rose Revolution, "won" the election with 53 percent of the vote. (For my take on Saakashvili, a pro-western tyrant, see here.)

The first casualty of tyranny is intelligence

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Regular readers of this blog, and perhaps others as well, will know that I am no fan of Hugo Chavez -- and that's putting it mildly. I have called him "The Tyrant of Caracas," writing post after post detailing his ongoing pursuit of absolutism, his brutalization of Venezuela, his dreams of anti-American supremacy. He calls himself a socialist, a Bolivarean revolutionary, a man of the oppressed masses, but, in truth, he is an abusive, egotistical thug. That's it in a nutshell. For more, see here (written before the recent referendum, which I was almost sure he would win -- he didn't, but he'll try again to acquire the powers denied to him by a majority of voters).

Still -- allow me to take a deep breath -- he's not all bad. Or, rather, not everything he does is bad. Consider, for example, his efforts to free the hostages held by FARC, Colombia's "Revolutionary Armed Forces," one of the world's more atrocious terrorist organizations. Here's The Guardian with the latest developments:

A mission spearheaded by Hugo Chávez and Oliver Stone to free three hostages held by Marxist guerrillas in the Colombian jungle was on a knife-edge last night after the rebels failed to deliver on the promised handover.

Venezuelan military helicopters bearing the Red Cross insignia sat for a third day in Villavicencio, a small town on the edge of Colombia's vast eastern jungles where the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as Farc, holds sway. They waited in vain for the guerrillas to tell them where to fly to inside the rebel-controlled zone to pick up the hostages.

The mission is being watched by Latin American leaders, the US, France and other countries with citizens among the 3,000 hostages being held by Farc. They hope that the championing by Chávez -- the Venezuelan president -- of a political solution involving the exchange of hostages for jailed guerrillas could open the door to further releases.

A group of 10 international observers from Latin America, France and Switzerland included the unlikely late addition of Stone, a Hollywood director, who was invited to join the rescue mission only a week ago when he met Chávez in Caracas. Chávez quipped that Stone was George Bush's emissary to the operation; Stone in return called Mr Chávez a "great man". The two flew together to Colombia at the weekend on the presidential jet.

In an interview from Villavicencio with Associated Press, Stone said he had no illusions about Farc, "but it looks like they are a peasant army fighting for a decent living. And here, if you fight, you fight to win."

As bad as Chavez is, FARC is worse, and if it takes an abusive, egotistical thug like Chavez to work out a diplomatic solution, so be it. (For more on FARC, see here. See also Robert Kaplan's discussion of FARC and its atrocities -- and of U.S. special forces operations in Colombia, which is another issue entirely -- in his brilliant Imperial Grunts. This is a group that commits mass murder, engages in horrifying acts of brutality, profits off the drug trade, and essentially enslaves children.) Let's hope something good comes of this -- namely, the release of the hostages.

But what about Oliver Stone's involvement in this? I have long been a defender of Stone the filmmaker. I don't like all of his movies, but two of his more controversial efforts, JFK and Nixon, are genuine masterpieces -- not of veracity, perhaps, but certainly of filmmaking. And, of course, he has long had an interest in radical left-wing politics -- in Latin America, in particular. (See Salvador, for example.) Much of this interest, and much of the attention he has brought to his championed causes, has been worthy both of admiration and of emulation.

But it is one thing to address the plight of the downtrodden and to cast light on the operations of, say, right-wing death squads in El Salvador, quite another to go so far as to call Chavez a "great man" and to make apologies for FARC. Chavez is no "great man" in liberal and democratic terms, nor even in historical terms, whatever his aspirations, and FARC isn't some "peasant army fighting for a decent living" in the violent jungles of Colombia. On the latter point, one needn't side with the government in Bogota or approve of U.S. operations in Colombia in order to see FARC for what it is. It isn't an either/or situation. Unfortunately, Oliver Stone, in what may be a case of anti-American zeal, seems to think that it is. Either that, or he doesn't know what he's talking about -- a distinct possibility, to be sure.

Regardless, such stupidity notwithstanding, what matters here is the success of the effort -- the release of the hostages. But what then? What if the effort succeeds and the hostages are traded for guerrillas? Well, Chavez will still be Chavez and FARC will still be FARC. The former will continue his pursuit of absolutism; the latter will continue with its various atrocities.

Oliver Stone film(s) to follow, illusions and all.

DA! and NO!

By MSS

Russian voters Sunday gave a huge "DA!" to President Vladimir Putin in legislative elections that were a de-facto referendum on extending Putin's "national leader" status beyond the scheduled expiration of his presidential tenure next spring.

Meanwhile, Venezuelan voters narrowly gave a "NO!" to the referendum called by President Hugo Chávez to extend his own tenure, as well as his powers and the role of the state in the economy.

I am unsurprised by the Russian result. Some months ago I said Putin's party would win two thirds to three fourths of the seats, despite polls at the time that said 47% of the vote. It would appear that United Russia will have right around 70% of the seats. Stay tuned as to whether this is a step towards having the power to amend the constitution and abolish the term limit, or whether he will find other ways to exercise the dominance that he will claim a mandate for.

I am surprised by the Venezuela result. Pleasantly so. A 51-49 YES would have been a terrible outcome. A 51-49 NO could be salutary.

A couple of paragraphs from Monday's LA Times well sum up what Venezuela's voters turned down:

Chavez's goal is authoritarian in nature, said Agustin Blanco Munoz, a researcher at Central University of Venezuela who wrote a biography based partially on jailhouse interviews he conducted after Chavez was imprisoned for leading the unsuccessful 1992 coup attempt.

"His model isn't communism or socialism. It's a varnish, a cover for a personalist system that exalts Chavez above all else as the caudillo, the new messiah, not the collective society," Blanco Munoz said.

On the Russian vote, it is interesting that the other parties on the ballot listed the top three candidates on their national lists, whereas United Russia listed only Putin. The Times reported that many voters appeared unaware that it was a legislative election. Clearly, that was Putin's intent, by abolishing the nominal tier of the former electoral system, and by creating the mass movement demanding him to stay on. Putin continues to deny he intends a third term. Will he be convinced otherwise, by the great "democratic outpouring"?

Turnout was only around 55% in Venezuela, meaning only around 28% of those eligible actually voted no. But good enough, for now, anyway. Russia's turnout was around 60%, so only about 38% of the eligible electorate has endorsed this overwhelming majority. But good enough.

**
The above was originally posted on Monday at fruitsandvotes.com/, where there is also a more extensive (and "political-sciency") discussion of "The electoral path to authoritarianism." The latter post has an extensive and very interesting comment thread, thanks to several very knowledgeable readers from around the world.

Thanks to Michael for reminding me of my blogging privileges here as a member of The Reaction team!

CHAVEZ LOSES

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Wow.

Truly astonishing.

Hugo Chavez has lost.

In a nation-wide referendum held on Sunday, Venezuelans voted against the constitutional reforms proposed by Chavez and approved by his parliamentary rubber-stampers.

For background, see my previous post here.

And make sure to check out our friend Daniel at Venezuela News and Views, that country's courageous voice of liberalism in the blogosphere.

The vote was, for a time, too close to call. Officials were citing exit polls showing the YES side ahead, but the opposition was claiming that the NO side would prevail.

The National Electoral Council has declared, however, that the NO side won 51-49 -- see the BBC for the latest (and see also a Q&A and additional background).

Here's the Times:

The results were a stunning defeat for a leader who was trying to extend already broad powers and lead his country in a radical new direction.

The commission said 50.7 percent voted against the referendum and 49.3 percent voted in favor. The results were all the more surprising given that Mr. Chávez and his supporters control nearly all of the levers of power.

"The result is quarrelsome," Vice President Jorge Rodríguez said in comments broadcast on national television.

Quarrelsome -- an odd choice of adjective. Evidently, you are being hostile and contentious and combative if you don't support Chavez's tyrannical ways.

Democracy has prevailed in Venezuela. For now.

**********

The Times article has been updated:

It was the first major electoral defeat in the nine years of his presidency. Voters rejected the 69 proposed amendments 51 to 49 percent.

The political opposition erupted into celebration, shooting fireworks into the air and honking car horns, when electoral officials announced the results at 1:20 a.m. The nation had remained on edge since polls closed Sunday afternoon and the wait for results began.

The outcome is a stunning development in a country where Mr. Chávez and his supporters control nearly all of the levers of power. Almost immediately after the results were broadcast on state television, Mr. Chávez conceded defeat, describing the results as a "photo finish."

"I congratulate my adversaries for this victory," he said. "For now, we could not do it."

For now -- which is to ask, what now?

Hard to say. Honestly, I did not predict this. In fact, I thought Chavez would find a way to win, any way.

He threatened to resign if his reforms were defeated, if he was defeated, but he won't. This vote may slow down his "revolution," his slice-by-slice coup, his gradual acquisition of tyrannical rule, but he will remain in power and he will try again. And again. Until he gets what he wants.

The people have spoken and rebuked him by a narrow margin, but they have not stopped him.

Trouble for Hugo

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Venezuelans are set to go to the polls this coming Sunday, December 2, to vote in a referendum on constitutional reforms that would expand President Hugo Chavez's powers and allow him to remain in power indefinitely (with the abolition of presidential term limits).

There seemed to be no doubt, at first, that passage was inevitable. Chavez would win, or, put differently, would not allow himself to lose. But recent polls suggest that the outcome is uncertain. Indeed, some polls put the No side in the lead. And Chavez, the Tyrant of Caracas, is not amused:

President Hugo Chávez is encountering unexpectedly strong opposition to a referendum on constitutional reform which would cement his rule in Venezuela, with violent clashes between rival demonstrations and security forces feeding a mood that the country is at a turning point.

According to opinion polls, the socialist leader could lose this Sunday's vote amid unease over his radical policies and ambition to stay in power for decades.

Defections from his movement's ranks and food shortages have galvanised a student-led opposition campaign which is due to climax at a final rally in downtown Caracas today.

Defeat would stymie Chávez's effort to abolish term limits and oblige him to step down in five years. He has expressed a desire to keep running for president until 2030.

The president, a formidable and charismatic campaigner, has cast the referendum as a verdict on his rule and said anyone who supported him but voted against would be a traitor. "It's black and white. A vote against the reform is a vote against Chávez," he told state television.

He said he would enter a period of "profound reflection" if he lost, but dismissed the prospect. "We're obligated to victory, to continue triumphing. This is a battle of world proportions."

The referendum is not about reforming the constitution so much as it is about entrenching Chavez's tyrannical rule. In other words, it's personal, as he himself has acknowledged. It is not "a battle of world proportions," of course, but he is fighting as if this is the fight of his life, a fight for his life, and, "obligated" or not, he will do whatever it takes to win.

For example, troops have used tear gas on student protesters opposed to Chavez's reforms. (Although it seems that the military is divided.) These courageous and determined students have taken the lead in speaking out and demonstrating against what they correctly see as their president's quest to obliterate democracy in their country. But it isn't just tear gas they're facing out in the streets. Some have been attacked by gunmen, thugs no doubt in Chavez's employ. There have been more protests this week -- more tear gas and rubber bullets, more clashes with police. Given that the more formal opposition has been beaten into submission, given that Chavez effectively controls the legislature, the judiciary, and the media, hope rests with these students and those who, like them, are prepared to take a firm stand against tyranny by voting No on Sunday.

But do the protests even matter, other than to express disaffection with Chavez, other than to raise awareness of what is going on in Venezuela? A poll conducted by a firm close to Chavez puts the Yes side ahead by as many as seven points. No wonder Chavez can be so confident. No wonder he can pre-emptively attack the No side's accusations of fraud if and when it loses. No wonder he can assert that the referendum "cannot fail". No wonder he can threaten to resign if he loses. He won't lose. He won't allow it. The entire process has been rigged, and the referendum is no exception. If he can't win through intimidation, he will find some other way.

Whatever the polls say, Chavez's power grab is pretty much a sure thing.

"I'll be there for you / When the rain starts to pour..."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, welcomes his Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chavez, to Tehran." (photo: The Globe and Mail)

In case you were wondering, here's part of their conversation:

Hugo: Look, Mahmoud, I can make this coin disappear.

Mahmoud: You are a man of many talents, Hugo. You know what I can make disappear?

Hugo: What's that, my friend?

Mahmoud: Homosexuals. There aren't any in this country. We execute them.

Hugo: Ha-ha. I love your sense of humour. So dry.

Mahmoud: No, Hugo, I'm being serious.

Hugo: Oh, okay. Sure. You know what I'm making disappear in my country?

Mahmoud: Homosexuals?

Hugo: No, no, not them, not so much.

Mahmoud: What then?

Hugo: Democracy!

Mahmoud: Ah! Yes! Very good!

Hugo: I won an election, you know.

Mahmoud: Hey, so did I. We're both democratic.

Hugo: Yes, of course we are! Ha-ha! Democratic revolutionaries!

Mahmoud: Do you ever read those -- oh, what are they called? -- web logs?

Hugo: Blogs? Yes, sometimes.

Mahmoud: I read one, by some guy in Canada, who said you're using salami tactics to seize more and more power. That's how he describes your revolution.

Hugo: Yes, yes. I know that one. La reacción. I hate that blog.

Mahmoud: So do I. He says mean things about me. They're all so mean!

Hugo: They don't like Bush, though.

Mahmoud: Bush, huh. Stupid idiot. But he's good for me. He's turning my people against the West.

Hugo: Same with me, my friend, same with me. Besides, look what he's doing to his country.

Mahmoud: Yes, I respect him, in a way.

Hugo: Yes, I know what you mean. Just don't say that publicly!

Mahmoud: Of course not! Never! Now, off we go, please. Let me tell you about our energy program, the one that has Bush shitting his pants.

Hugo: You're a good man, Mahmoud.

Mahmoud: Thank you, Hugo. It's mutual.

Hugo: Down with America!

Mahmoud: Down with America!

Tear gas and tyranny

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Not a big fan of Hugo Chavez? Not so enthusiastic about his tyrannical rule? Well, take that:

Venezuelan troops have used tear gas and water cannon to disperse thousands of students in the capital, Caracas.

The students are demonstrating against constitutional reforms proposed by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.

One of the reforms would abolish term limits for the presidency, thus allowing President Chavez to stand for re-election indefinitely.

The students want a December referendum on the reforms to be postponed, to give voters more time to study the plans.

That's right, all the protesters want is a postponement, hardly a radical proposal. But any opposition to Chavez is anathema to his national socialist revolution, which does not allow for opposition, and, it seems, any opposition will be put down. Brutally, if necessary -- and even if not. Brutality comes with the revolution, a revolution to install Chavez himself as permanent dictator of a brutalized Venezuela, just as it comes with Chavez's rule generally.

And the use of tear gas is probably on the soft end of the brutality. The troops were no doubt going easy on the protesters -- easy this time, but what else is going on in Venezuela? What else is Chavez inflicting on the people of his country? Enough to turn even Giuliani's stomach, one imagines.

It must be very, very bad in today's Venezuela. And it is only going to get worse.

**********

I have already, in many other posts, addressed Chavez's tyranny, as well as these reforms. For my recent post on what I called Chavez's "salami tactics," tyranny slice-by-slice, see here. For more on this "coup," see here. For previous posts on Chavez's "abolition of democracy," see here.

The salami tactics of Hugo Chavez

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In the first episode of the great Yes, Prime Minister, "The Grand Design," new PM Jim Hacker meets with the government's chief scientific advisor to discuss defence policy. The advisor, a hawkish Austrian, argues that the Soviet Union would use "salami tactics" to take over Europe, that is, a "slice-by-slice" plan with no one slice so grave as to compel the West (or the U.K., in this case) to respond militarily. (The 16 YPM episodes originally aired on the BBC from 1986-88.) At each slice/stage of the scenario, he presses Hacker -- What would it take for him to act? An incursion into West Berlin? Or would the Soviets have to go so far as to take over the Reform Club, one of London's old political establishments? Would he ever respond with nuclear weapons? Probably not.

My point here is not to make a case for military action against Venezuela, but it is clear that Hugo Chavez is using salami tactics in his drive to establish so-called "Bolivarean" socialism -- that is, his own national-socialist autocratic rule -- in that country. I wrote about this last week: "Sometimes revolution can be achieved without sudden, dramatic bloodletting." There are a number of different prongs to Chavez's continuing revolution, a number of slices. They may be examined individually, but they are best understood as variations of the same, as components of a single overarching plan. The nationalization of industry, the seizure of private property, repression of dissent and opposition, control of the media, one-party rule, rule by decree, and, soon, the removal of constitutional impediments to the permanent and perpetual rule of the leader himself.

The pattern is clear. One slice, then another, and another, and another, with no one slice so grave as to compel anyone to act (although there are courageous opponents of Chavez's tyranny in Venezuela, and there was a coup, if not one worthy of much admiration, in 2002). And there has been another, as the AP is reporting:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened on Monday to close or take over any private school that refuses to submit to the oversight of his socialist government as it develops a new curriculum and textbooks.

"Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants," said Chavez, speaking on the first day of classes.

All schools, public and private, must admit state inspectors and submit to the government's new educational system, or be closed and nationalized, with the state taking responsibility for the education of their children, Chavez said.

A new curriculum will be ready by the end of this school year, and new textbooks are being developed to help educate "the new citizen," said Chavez's brother and education minister Adan Chavez...

This is a serious slice, and there is a lot here: the submission of the private to the public, a leader speaking for "society," a new (re-)educational system, propaganda, threats of nationalization and state control, the concept of a "new citizen," nepotism. This could be 1984. There may not yet be any killing fields -- none that we know of -- but the rest is beginning to look a lot like the tyrannies, the totalitarian tyrannies, of the last century. Pol Pot, meet Hugo Chavez.

Some will accuse me of exaggeration, of misrepresentation. But therein lies the problem: Chavez is a smart guy, and he knows what he's doing, and he's doing it in such a way as to minimize suspicion and criticism, to come across as a man of the people, not the people's oppressor. He's not rolling into Caracas with tanks and death squads, but he doesn't need them. Not yet. Not with his salami tactics, grabbing slice after slice.

From populist to demagogue to tyrant, all with a bright red shirt, a huge smile, and some rousing anti-American rhetoric -- and with many in his own country and around the world giving him the benefit of the doubt. But all you have to do is put the slices back together to see what he's really up to.

And it isn't all fun and games.

Coup de Caracas

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A few weeks ago, I posted on the latest development in the growing tyranny of Hugo Chavez. You can find that post here -- it includes links to six previous posts on this topic.

There isn't much democracy in Venezuela -- what democracy there is is largely a Chavez-friendly sham introduced by Chavez to sustain his authoritarian rule. At the national level -- if not below it as well -- Chavez's explicit goal is the abolition of democracy altogether, all for the sake of his vainglorious revolution, a national-socialist revolution that looks for inspiration to Bolivar and Castro.

The specific topic of my last post was Chavez's plan to amend the constitution to remove term limits on the presidency, that is, on him and his authoritarian rule, first in the National Assembly and then by way of a national referendum.

As the BBC is reporting, the National Assembly is currently discussing Chavez's plan. And there won't be much debate, let alone genuine opposition. The National Assembly has been wholly pro-Chavez since the 2005 elections, boycotted by the major opposition parties amid credible allegations of corruption. Chavez's legislative minions granted him rule by decree in January and they'll no doubt grant him what he wants now. And then so will the people, in the sham of a referendum that is to follow -- can there be any doubt as to the outcome? Chavez will not allow himself to lose, no matter what. (Update -- 9/12/07: see here. The National Assembly has approved Chavez's plan for the second time -- one more time to go, then the referendum.)

Sometimes revolution can be achieved without sudden, dramatic bloodletting. This one of those times, a calculated plot to use the levers of government to establish tyranny.