Nothing but Paspalum Fasciculatum here
Great job, Daniel. Let's remember the famous words of Joseph Stalin: "Election results are not decided by the people; they are decided by the ones who count the votes". Nuff' said!
Sorry, Edgar - had a total brain failure. That's what happens when you browse so diferent blogs and suddendly forget who is responsible for which site. But still: congratulations on your post.
Something I want to add: if we take the last election results, we can conclude that close to 72% of the registered voters don´t trust the CNE or do not care about the government role in the local affairs (everything is done IF the Supremo says so).
Jimmy Carter never met a 3rd world dictator he didn't like. His endorsement doomed democracy in Venezuela, because he wears the mantra of impartiality around the world. Advice to the 3rd world -- if you see Jimmmy Carter in your country, get your Bible out and turn to Revelations. The end is near.
Brook,
Yeah, I remember hearing all this stuff about Carter when I came to the U.S., and thinking: "but if he seems such a good guy!", from the Venezuelan perspective. The RR was a really rude awakening.
Now, if you add to that that Jesse Jackson has also given Chávez his endorsement, there should be no more proof required, right 
Tito,
the problem with the elections is that you cannot extrapolate why did people did not vote, we can both beleive that what you say is the case, but there is no real "proof." Even the 15%? null vote (which would make it the second party in the elections) can be subject to different interpretations (Miguel had a good article on that), but if you add them together, that would be a good 87% total.
The numbers that I quoted came from a poll by Datanalisys, that might have had a somewhat estrange pro-Chavez bias (Daniel did an article on that)
While we await with great anticipation the comments of Simon Bolivar II, I thought I'd warm up the crowd with a real crowd-tickler today from the "democratically" elected President Of Iran.
Ahmadinejad added, "Prudent people realize that any resistance to the Islamic culture and revolution is useless. the future undoubtedly belongs to Islam, the Islamic Revolution and the Iranian nation.
LOL, this comment proves that Chavez does not have a lock on sociopathic lunacy. It's wide spread.
Brook,
does that mean that I will have to stop eating pork?!!!, no way josé, Pastafarianism is the wave of the future!!!.
BTW: a friendly warning, I ,as many Venezuelans take offense at the use of Simón Bolívar's name to refer to Chavez (imagine Washington instead...). I get the humor, but so you know...
Edgar, I thought we had already been through this. To answer your question, Yes, Venezuela is a democracy.
And to correct your silliness, the RR was a referendum on whether or not Chavez should remain in the presidency, what's this referendum on democracy nonsense. You make it sound like people went out and voted for a dictatorship. Which doesn't even mesh with your b.s. theories of fraud, but anyway, how much coherence can we expect from someone who says that Sumate is the most democratic organization in Venezuela, eh.
Again, I like the Farrugia quote but I'm dissapointed with your "borron y cuenta nueva", or more like 'new post, start spouting the same discredited conspiracy theories again' tactic.
To make myself perfectly clear, you already admitted in a previous comments
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/scubaed/
112566163933706543/#7140
section that:
A) You can't prove there was fraud, but even if there was it was not large enough to change the NO result of the referendum which confirmed Chavez as President.
B) It is your opinion and that of those who think like you that just because you have unfounded and already disproven doubts about the process, even though you are a minority of the Venezuelan population, the rest of the country should please you and ignore the fact that they already held a referendum, voted, and got on with their lives.
Poderescu,
Errrr... discredited?. proved? admitted? have you been reading?. Or do you suffer of some reading disability that I am not aware of? (that would explain a lot)
First remember this quote:
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
-Aristotle
I guess you meant to link to this comment.
if you actually read it, you will notice that I did not _admit_ anything, I just said that if there was fraud or not it is irrelevant, what is relevant is that a _large_ segment of the population thinks there is, with many reasons to think that way, and there are no legal resources for us to go to, a point that I made clear in this post (and yes, I believe there was fraud, I believe there was more than enough fraud to change the outcome, I, as a very large number of Venezuelans, have more than enough reasons to believe so, but again, THAT IS NOT THE POINT!!).
And to correct your silliness, the RR was a referendum on whether or not Chavez should remain in the presidency. You make it sound like people went out and voted for a dictatorship...
Again, learn to read: "...for us in the 'opposition' the RR was..." that means for the ones that voted against him, the ones that see the dictator he is, it has nothing whatsoever to do, neither I am trying to imply anything about, the ones that voted _for_ him.
Súmate is a bastion for democracy, go ahead, prove me wrong. And remember that labels are no proof.
And BTW you (assuming that you are the same "Poder Escualido") left that discussion, you did not present any _logic_ counter to my arguments, and you have the gonads to tell me that you 'discredited' my 'conspiracy theories'?. Get a grip.
Yes, I stopped after you admitted that, objectively, there was no fraud.
You then stated that to you and another, undefined, "large group of Venezuelans", an entirely subjective and for all I know imaginary group, the elections were suspect.
Logically speaking, you didn't make an argument, you presented an opinion in your name and that of an indeterminate group of 'others', which allegedly contradicts the facts. There may be people who hold this opinion, but objectively, logically, you conceded by default, by moving to the realm of many Venezuelans think that there was no fraud.
About Sumate, I could point you to numerous sources documenting Sumate's involvement in the 2002 coup, or the Venezuelan Law which outlaws an organization which participates in the electoral/political discourse from receiving foreign monies. But you already know this, probably support the coup and are grateful for Sumate's involvement, and don't care about laws that are broken by your "Democratic" opposition. (capital D because it is more similar to the U.S. "Democratic" party than an organization of the demos.
So it is kindergarten now.
Quote _exactly_, to the letter, where I admitted that.
Did you read the Aristotle quote?, let me put it forth again to see if it sinks in:
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
-Aristotle
I move into that realm because I know exactly where yo want to go, and it is not your place, or mine for that matter, to _decide_ if there was fraud or not (besides I now know that no matter how much evidence I present to you, with your now patent reading skills, you will not change your mind). It is the place of a court of law to decide, based on evidence, if there was fraud or not. Courts in Venezuela will not, under this current regime, even admit any case related to that. And THAT IS THE POINT. And from that point of view it does not even matter if it is only ONE person that thinks that way.
_Undefined_ large group of Venezuelans?. Have you even bothered reading the blogs, or the news? (or the responses to you for that matter?). exactly why do you think that 47% of Venezuelans (if you want to accept that poll result) say that the CNE is the _most_ untrustworthy of the "democratic" institutions? (and note that that is really a lower bound for this point).
On Súmate, you have not given me any facts yet. So to make it easier, first remember that a 'political opposition' institution puts candidates forth to 'political positions.' So let me rephrase that question, name _any_ candidate from Súmate to _any_ political position.
Now if you want to extend the term 'political opposition' or 'political discourse' to mean anyone that talks about or analyzes electoral or democratic problems. Then you have just included all of humanity in your definition.
Oh, and show me the 'evidence' on Súmate's involvement on the 'coup' (and I quote it because a supreme court decision, now reverted by the extra-packed court, said it was not), because as far as I read it's only you saying that. Oh, and bonus points, how many 'laws' have been broken by Chavez, the CNE, and the Supreme Court?.
You are correct that “free elections” are not enough to define a democracy, especially when those elections are hampered by a list of choices that the majority does not approve of in either case. Such is the state of democracy in the United States.
A genuine democracy is not a system when the people speak the government listens. It is a system where the government IS the people. A system that is directly ruled by the people may establish a system where mistakes are made, however they are fewer and farther between then in any other form of governance. The reason for this is because when the collective intellect of the population of a whole is utilized, then mistakes that would cause harm to a segment of the population is minimized.
Democracies have gone through cycles, dark periods if you will, in their histories. However, I think if you honestly review those histories you will find that those dark periods tend to occur when the democracy has become dysfunctional. It happens when the role of the people to govern themselves has been subverted.
I’m sure many Venezuelans, primarily the more well to do segment of the population, sees Chavez as a threat. In nations like Venezuela (and the United States too) the upper classes see their own position in society as more important that hunger of the masses. Chavez has given hope to these masses, and is working to establish a system of direct democracy in the workplaces (the BBC recently reported this), following the lead by Argentina.
For far too long the United States has used Central and South America as our “sphere of influence” in order to subject their peoples to US corporate hegemony. Argentina has followed this mistaken path, and has followed IMF and World Bank fundamentalism, and we can all see the result. But the people of Argentina have discovered that when the People rule the workplaces, another result is possible. Zanon Ceramics went from an empty factory to the largest textile manufacturer south of the Rio Grande, and it did so by following the same principals that Chavez is now following. That system has the potential to eliminate those huddled starving masses by giving them real genuine hope for a better tomorrow.
It seems to me that Hugo Chavez has taught us Americans a lesson in democracy that we too long ago forgot.
I would remind you that Aristotle helped to overthrow the world's first democracy in Greece.
Edgar, excellent post. Venezuela does not qualify as a democracy for ocurrence of elections does not mean more democracy if the electorate will is not respected.
Some time ago I got in touch with IDEA and wrote a bit about it:
http://www.vcrisis.com/?content=letters/
200407181035
Re the argument of the octo-wanker regarding Sumate, you have, quite rightly, asked the appropriate question: "name _any_ candidate from Súmate to _any_ political position." He won't answer to that one but perhaps he would to this one:
PLEASE NAME THE LEGISLATION THAT FORBIDS NGOS FROM ACCEPTING FOREIGN FUNDS
BTW the Tascon list can now be downloaded with emule. I have got it here and I'm simply astounded at the level of detail the chavistas have of the electorate, mind you addresses, political tendencies, dob, telephone in some instances, how many chavistas there are per polling center....
Now imagine the outcry if such thing were to happen in the US or Britain or France and you reach only one conclusion: Hugo Chavez and his thugocracy are undefensible.
To Alva and Poderescu: can you stop using the bloody same book of revolutionary responses that everyone is so sick to look at?
Sumate a coup monger? Check. Venezuela is a true democracy? Check. All theories about the RR are just poor BS from the opposition? Check. You are just a minority? Check.
Please grow up already. I wonder if you, in all of your "almighty" wisdom, have anything to say about private productive proverty being seized, or the prison inmates dying one per day (or more).
As always: if you so value Chavez' revolution, come down here, live thru it and share your views with everyone in the Internet.
Alva,
Will all those who don't know anything about America please cease and desist!!!
For one thing, employee corporate ownership is prolific in America. It's not a new concept. It has worked well in some cases, not so well in others. So, I'm happy for the Argentine ceramic makers, but let's keep things in perspective, shall we?
Argentina, for your information, was far more prosperous per capita than the US at one time, so somehow they managed to escape the evil corporate clutches of America. Why do they now find themselves in the predicament they're in? The answer is complicated, and far too much so to paper over as a victim of American hegemony.
Nothing about Chavez philosophy or ideas are new. The Bolsheviks were saying all these same things abut 100 years ago. This doesn't mean Chavez will fail as they did. It does mean he hasn't studied their revolutuion and therefore is not taking steps to insure that he won't repeat their mistakes. Socialism, in fact, has a very poor track record of success in most of the countries where it's been tried. If I'm wrong, give me the long list of successes.
Yeah Brook, that's the same problem we have with those that know nothing about Venezuela.
Alva, you are clearly following what Chavez is _saying_ but you are not paying too much attention to what Chavez is _doing_, and that is the problem that we, Venezuelans, have with him. Read some history about Venezuela and you will see that the savage capitalism you describe has never been a part of our culture, this article is a good starting point.
What he is doing is to increase corruption and crime to unbelievable levels, destroying our infrastructure, increasing poverty, etc. etc. While, at the same time, keeping a veneer of 'social democracy.' All this while the Country is receiving the most oil revenue money that it has ever had.
If you think that our democracy was dysfunctional before Chavez think that the president that he attempted a coup against got impeached because he used money for a particular purpose to pay for another (both government related), now we don't even know what any of the state money is being used for. So now it is not a democracy at all.
If you think that it's only 'high class elites' that are against him, think again, ask the other bloggers and forum participants, check Alek's bio. I myself come from a low middle class family, my mother house is still a block away from one of those so called 'barrios', and _all_ of my education was in public schools (which used to be quite good) partially because we could not have afforded it otherwise.
So it is the 'elites' vs. the 'poor' struggle that gets well intentioned people like you to unwillingly work for a dictator, please check my piece on 'labels,' you might understand a thing or two.
Oh, and BTW: your definition of democracy is just an extreme case of mine, if the people _is_ the government then that means that they are listening to themselves, the problem is that such system is not generally workable (and it is the main flawed assumption of pure communism), all working democracies tend to be of "the election of a king for a few years" variety. In its purest form it can quickly degenerate into a 'mob democracy' which could be even worse than a dictatorship. In all forms of communism you just have to remove the 'election' part.
Another great man said:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
-Benjamin Franklin
Alek,
good link (but quite technical and hard to read 
). I was trying to drive the main point home, it is quite inconsequential to say 'how much of a democracy it is' when it is clear that some of the most basic tenets of a democracy have been lost. But it clearly points to this thinking being there even before the RR, when it had not reached the levels that it now has. I guess I'll add it to the post.
Oh, and another question that could be asked is: "where is the special provision that allows Chavez to sidestep the constitution and receive $150000 from the spanish banks for his campaign."
Oh Brook, you reminded me of the times when an engineer in Venezuela had two to three times the equivalent salary of an engineer in the U.S. (it was not that long ago) just look at us now. A university graduate _student_ in the U.S. could earn up to 4 times what a full professor does in a Venezuelan university, and costs are not much different.
Edgar Brown,
I said:
"It is simply rationally impossible that under these circumstances a SIGNIFICANT fraud would have ocurred to change the result from a majority YES to a majority NO."
Your exact response began with the following phrase:
It is to you but not to many of us
There is but one factual, objective, rational truth. Clearly you, Edgar Brown, and "many of" you escualidos out there, choose to ignore it, but all this does is show how silly you are.
I am honored that my argument was "difficult" enough to prompt your rescue attempt, Tiburon. Better luck next time. As for Sumate, you were already proved wrong elsewhere, creo que te gusta no, pinche escualido masoquista.
Let me rewrite the resultant statement::
To Poderescu it is simply irrationally impossible that under these circumstances a significant fraud would have occurred to change the result from a majority YES to a majority NO
You state that as a fact, you state it as objective, you state it as rational, so to me there are only two possible conclusions, either you are right, or you are not making a rational argument and/or you are not being objective. However, your statement has not been proven, the Venezuelan supreme court will not accept the many, many, proofs that have been brought forward. So for us, in the 'opposition,' (which seems to be at least 47% or, about 9 million Venezuelans?) there is only one possible conclusion, specially after witnessing your reading abilities, and believe me, it is not that you are right.
However, as I said several times before, and you fail to understand: THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
And I was _proven_ wrong elsewhere?, yet you chose to ignore the questions. Please facts, not hearsay.
I beleive that this: "Pinche escualido masoquista" deserves being pointed here.
You, Edgar Brown, say my statement has not been proven. (You also modify it slightly, no doubt thinking yourself clever) Let's take a look at it (again) (paciencia, dios mio).
It is simply rationally impossible that under these circumstances a significant fraud would have occurred to change the result from a majority YES to a majority NO
Seems more like a description of a situation than a statement with a true/false provable value. The context of these circumstances, of course, is an unprecedented international monitoring effort which lends ultimate, absolute credibility to what follows. Whether you like it or not.
Here is a statement with a true/false value:
There was no fraud in the recall referendum
Now, (again) (dios mio), the Carter Center (through Jennifer McCoy, who had previously declared to U.S. Congress subcommittee that Chavez was engaged in "new, subtler forms of authoritarianism" http://www.narconews.com/Issue34/article1042.html),
the OAS (through Cesar Gaviria,who held out for a while http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/
296411.html, and a unanimous resolution http://www.oas.org/OASpage/press_releases/
press_release.asp?sCodigo=C-138/04), and other observers all concluded that the above statement is TRUE.
So did the majority of Venezuelans, at least 53% even using your ridiculous method. So yes, I am right, and you are wrong, na na na na.
Futhermore, about your ridiculous method, lets analyze your logic process.
1) 47% of Venezuelans distrust the NEC.
2) ~70% of Venezuelans approve of Chavez.
Therefore: 47% of Venezuelans are in the opposition? WTF? Are you serious?
(DIOS MIO!)
And yes, Edgar, this is the point. The point is that nobody except a bunch of spoiled, delusional escualidos "think" there was a fraud, and furthermore, "think" that they deserve to waste everybody's time and resources with a case that has already been proven against them. Salud.
No Poderescu, you definitively cannot see the point, the point is that Venezuela is NOT a democracy, what YOU think or I think about the referendum is not relevant, the FACT that I think one way and you think another is what is relevant, the FACT that there is documented evidence that backs me up (that YOU choose to ignore) and that there is documented evidence (which _I_ find suspect) that backs you up, is what is relevant. The FACT that many Venezuelans, including Supreme Court judges agree with my statements about the CNE is what is relevant. The FACT (as factual as polls go) that 47% of Venezuelans do not trust the CNE is what is relevant. The FACT is that it is something that only a _democratic_ court of law can decide, nor you nor me. However the FACT is that the supreme court, the only Venezuelan court that can decide on this, and is overly-packed with overtly declared Chavistas, will not hear, nor decide based on evidence, such case, which is what makes Venezuela stop being a democracy.
Do I need to spell it any further for you?. Do I need to keep repeating myself?. Do I need to compare it to your beloved Florida 2000 election?, as your last post applies directly to it. Because it is my patience that is starting to wear thin, and we both know what that leads to.
So you can cry your lungs out shouting that the Referendum is valid, it is neither YOUR place to DECIDE on it, nor relevant for this discussion.
BTW: let me just point out that you ignored everything on Súmate, again.
Education corner:
On 'modifying your statement' did you _read_ the line I put before that, do you understand what the word 'resultant' means?
Statement: The act of stating or declaring. Something stated; a declaration. And it's YOU the one that assigned a true/false value to it, my gradation was much more explicit.
And you repeat the fallacy that I pointed out here. You cannot extrapolate that 53% of Venezuelans agree with you from those statements. You do not have data backing up that statement of: '...so did the majority of Venezuelans.' Nor can you extrapolate that 47% of Venezuelans are in the 'opposition' (whatever that means). However you can extrapolate that a significant percentage of Chavez 'approvers' (whatever that means) do not trust the CNE.
Have you ever had a class in formal logic?
Yes. I have taken several logic courses.
I don't have time to respond to everything, but about "fallacy". Let's re-examine the facts of our discussion.
I)
Me: "So did the majority of Venezuelans, at least 53% even using your ridiculous method. So yes, I am right, and you are wrong, na na na na.
Futhermore, about your ridiculous method, lets analyze your logic process.
1) 47% of Venezuelans distrust the NEC.
2) ~70% of Venezuelans approve of Chavez.
Therefore: 47% of Venezuelans are in the opposition? WTF? Are you serious?"
You: "You cannot extrapolate that 53% of Venezuelans agree with you from those statements."
I know, thats why I called your method ridiculous. But given that 58% of Venezuelans voted for Chavez in the RR, and 70% approve of him today, its still a reasonable assumption that a majority of Venezuelans agree.
II)
You: "So for us, in the 'opposition,' (which seems to be at least 47% or, about 9 million Venezuelans"
"Nor can you extrapolate that 47% of Venezuelans are in the 'opposition' (whatever that means)"
Well at least you realized you were wrong in the end.
III)
You: "However you can extrapolate that a significant percentage of Chavez 'approvers' (whatever that means) do not trust the CNE"
Not really. If we assume that all 30% of Chavez non-approvers distrust the NEC, that leaves 17% of the population to come out of the Chavez approver group. 17/50, less than half, is not a significant percentage.
"Because it is my patience that is starting to wear thin, and we both know what that leads to."
No need to repeat yourself Edgar, readers, if there are any, can just scroll up and see the facts for themselves. I would advise that you acknowledge your 4 (3 shown here, the 4th quoted from above) logical fallacies, in order to regain some kind of standing.
One mistake made above: 17/50 should be 17/70. A much less significant percentage, I might add.
..... 999997, 999998, 999999, 1000000, ok.
Yeah, I see a few fallacies there alright, but all of them are either "communication errors" or "false assumptions."
I.) According to the evidence that YOU support, 58% of venezuelans voted for him on the RR. According to the evidence _I_ support, I do not know how many venezuelans voted for him in the RR. So since I have no knowledge of that I do not use that number. So from those two statements, and those two statements alone, you cannot conclude that 53% number of yours.
II.) Well, where _exactly_ did I say that 47% of venezuelans _are_ in the opposition?!!. Ohhhhh, I now see where the confusion is.
That's precisely why I used the quotes in 'opposition' as I had a very particular meaning in mind when I wrote that (remember what I have said about labels?), and that is also why I used the qualifier "seems to be" instead of "are," I never write such things lightly (I guess you will have to wait until my soon to follow article to fully see what I mean). There the context was the CNE's role in the RR, thus there, and only there, that 47% number was applicable.
Good thing I counted to 1000000, because I was getting ready to rip you a new one for that (and that would have made me look baaaad)....
III.) Well you are making a couple of assumptions, I am not. The first one is that the method for the poll can be extrapolated in this way, that is to determine who are Chavistas, and who are not, which is not that certain (and that is why I said "whatever that means"). And the second one is ignoring that such measure could in reality have a possible range of 17% (3.2 million) to 47% (9 million), with a zero-knowledge estimate of 33% (6.6 million).
But then, a 'significant percentage' is a relative thing, for a hard scientist more than 10% _is_ a _very_ significant percentage (more than 1% is significant in some disciplines), so 17/70 or 24% is extremely significant in that context. You are assuming that I meant more than 50%, in which case I would have used the wording "a majority." Though I admit that I could have used: "a large _number_ of Chavistas," which would have been unambiguous.
IV.) I am not sure what has been "quoted from above" in your 4th point, or if I have not addressed it already....
1) According to the evidence that YOU support, 58% of venezuelans voted for him on the RR. According to the evidence _I_ support, I do not know how many venezuelans voted for him in the RR. So since I have no knowledge of that I do not use that number. So from those two statements, and those two statements alone, you cannot conclude that 53% number of yours.
The evidence I "support" are simply the facts. On the other hand, the "evidence" you support has been refuted by every possible impartial observer and analyst. You are so delusional it's starting to be sad.
Go ahead, re-read my statement, I won't waste space by reposting it. I clearly stated that it was a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption that a majority of Venezuelans support and trust the President and the electoral system that confirmed him. This was after acknowledging, in the plainest terms that I can think of, that your method of extrapolation was ridiculous, so it wouldn't make sense for me to use it in reverse, would it, and I DID NOT.
2) the 47% is applicable only to the fact that 47% of respondents to a poll said they "distrust the NEC". Thats it. everything else is extrapolation. for example, to extrapolate that this 47% has doubts about the NEC's role in the RR is already extrapolation.
but anyway, the point here is that you used the number to quantify the opposition, then took it back, then qualified your 'opposition' label in all sorts of silly ways. let's remember that you were attempting to show that the "group of people who wants Chavez out of power" is composed of millions of Venezeualans. Since in the end you admit that you have no evidence or measuring metric to back up this general assertion, one can only conclude that the opposition consists of you (and I guess Daniel, Boyd, and a few others).
3) Yes, I said "If we assume that all 30% of Chavez non-approvers distrust the NEC" Notice the word assume in there? You see, I use it when appropriate, not to clean up previous mistakes in logic. What's significant, what isn't, your right, its very debatable. To me, the fact that a fourth of those who "approve of Chavez" "distrust the NEC", in addition to being ambiguous and open to faulty extrapolation from anti-Chavista bloggers, is not very significant.
Bottom line, be a man and admit your mistakes Edgar.
I am a man, and I admit my mistakes when I commit them, anyone that has seen me in comment sections for some time can attest to that, and there are multiple examples in this blog, the real question is: do you ever do?. Because I can't recall you ever doing it. And BTW, to me this is not a pissing contest, it is the life of my fellow Venezuelans.
1) The "evidence you support" can be considered facts only under the assumption that the CNE (or NEC as you prefer to call it) can be trusted, and that the "impartial judges" (whatever that is) were allowed to do what was supposed to be their job. So for _me_ it is an assumption, not a fact. And this is something that a few million Venezuelans agree with (and yes, millions, not just me and a few other bloggers). Unless you consider a circular argument a fact, that is.
And your "reasonable assumption" is not "reasonable" to _me_.
2.) Granted, the current distrust of 47% of Venezuelans in the CNE does not _directly_ imply that 47% of venezuelans doubt the role of the CNE in the RR. However, why do 47% of Venezuelans distrust the CNE?. Why would a very large proportion of the population distrust what is supposed to be the "impartial judge of elections?". Could it be because the do not trust what they do in the elections?. Could it be because of what they did in the biggest 'election' in all of Venezuela's history, the RR?. I think that that would be a _very_ reasonable assumption.
And no, I did not take it back, I said it exactly as I meant it, no matter how you choose to interpret it. And read the thread again, in that _particular_ context it did not say anything about "the group of people that want Chavez out of power," you interpreted that way, it was just "the people that do not trust the CNE's role in the RR." 'Opposition' for me is a very loaded label, and as I said, I will soon have a post on that, so I suggest that you hold 'your guns' for that one.
And for it being just a couple of us, did you see the picture in my article?.
3) Jeez, I guess I have a time machine then to be able to clear previous mistakes in logic by somehow adding qualifiers after the fact.
And as you said, to _you_ is not very significant. but I said "it is a significant percentage of approvers" and it is a significant percentage alright. What does that suggest?. At least a quarter of those 'in power' do not trust the electoral system that put them there?. I don't know, but that is somewhat significant from _my_ point of view. And it is specially significant for this particular topic.
I guess that that in last paragraph it should have been "At least a quarter of those that 'approve of Chávez' do not trust the electoral system." As 'in power' has a different interpretation, and yes, I quoted it, but I now see how you react to quotes.
1) The onus is upon you to prove that the election results were not valid, otherwise it is perfectly logical and common-sensical to trust that the RR was legit, as numerous international observers have confirmed. Where is your evidence? A link to something other than a fellow blogger would be appreciated, although before you rail at me for demanding links, you are of course not under any obligation to actually prove your outlandish claims.
2)Granted, the current distrust of 47% of Venezuelans in the CNE does not _directly_ imply that 47% of venezuelans doubt the role of the CNE in the RR. Thank you. Forgive me but I choose to ignore your later extrapolations, from my frame of reference they are meaningless.
3) No point in us arguing subjectives, we can each spin our own way and that won't change anything.
What I can't wait to hear though is why you continue to say there are "millions" of Venezuelans on your side. Is it that democracy and the people's intentions are to be estimated from pictures now?
We agree that the poll numbers say nothing concrete. You claim that the RR results are not to be trusted, so we can't assume that 40% is the number. Where are you getting this "millions" number?
Well you said it all, from _your frame of reference_ my facts are meaningless. So I have to now make assumptions about that frame of reference then?. I guess I will choose to let the reader figure that one out, because it is becoming somewhat obvious to me. And let me just copy exactly what your frame of reference is choosing to ignore:
...the current distrust of 47% of Venezuelans in the CNE does not _directly_ imply that 47% of venezuelans doubt the role of the CNE in the RR. However, why do 47% of Venezuelans distrust the CNE?. Why would a very large proportion of the population distrust what is supposed to be the "impartial judge of elections?". Could it be because they do not trust what they do in the elections?. Could it be because of what they did in the biggest 'election' in all of Venezuela's history, the RR?. I think that that would be a _very_ reasonable assumption.
And let me add that there have been two elections after the RR, the last one with an official abstention number (by the CNE) of 70%, and an extra-official one of 80%. And a null vote of 17% (5% of population, almost as much as Chávez's own party got). And that 14% of population is already millions (plural, in case that is not clear) of Venezuelans. What you _choose_ to do with that extra information, is up to you.
And since you keep choosing to ignore that this is not the point, and from my point of view since you chose to completely ignore the point drilled for the third, or was it fourth time, in this comment, you have already conceded that Venezuela is not a Democracy anyway, which was the topic of this discussion.
Your wanting to engage in a pissing contest about the particular leaves of a particular tree is just a waste of my time. You can see this, to see why.
Crud, those "anonymous" were obviously me...
Oh, and on the links, I do plan to add a few more to the article, but going ad-hominem as in "because a blogger says so" does not make it less valid (I guess you consider Human Rights Watch just a blogger too). Even if you choose to appeal to authority it does not make your point any more valid.
If you want the last word, you now have it, but keep in mind that this is my house, my rules, and I really want to test this "banning people" thing, and then the last word would be mine for sure.
Me: "Forgive me but I choose to ignore your later extrapolations"
You: "Well you said it all, from _your frame of reference_ my facts are meaningless"
Nice try, but, evidently, I said your extrapolations mean very little to me. This is precisely because they are not facts.
Yes, the point is not that Chavez won the RR because Venezuela is not a democracy because Chavez won the RR with fraud which I cannot prove which is not the point because Venezuela is not a democracy.
Talk about circular logic.
I neither want the last word nor to prove that I can piss farther than you. I know I can.
Hey, if you're saying that Human Rights Watch said something about the RR, I'd love to see it. I don't think there was anything ad-hominem about stating that I will not accept a blog as a valid source for facts, unless properly referenced.
There are many authority sources or whatever your term is that I would accept, try me you will see I am fairly open minded.
Ok, let me try this one last time.
The argument is if Venezuela is a democracy. You seem to define it as the official 'verified' outcome of the RR. I define it as being a democracy, which among other things means having even the remote possibility of verifying an election (the 'well armed sheep' analogy, remember?). Human Rights Watch as many other organizations and Venezuelans saw, and warned of, this problem _before_ the RR, on its July 2004 report to be exact. So clearly the RR results did not even exist back then.
So from this argument point of view, the _actual_ outcome of the RR is irrelevant. The FACT that there are two parties, government on one side, and 'opposition' on the other, that disagree (with proof) on the outcome, is what's relevant.
You choose to fight on the RR side of things, which as I said is irrelevant. So let me appeal to my authority first. I, as many other venezuelans abroad was mostly separated of the day to day politics until the big strike of 2002, and the resulting 'coup.' I started paying more attention to the news back then, listening to Venezuelan radio, and watching Venezuelan TV. I was aware of all the issues that were surrounding the RR, _before_ the RR. But my 'activism' did not start until after the RR, in which I mostly dedicated myself 24/7 to figure out what had happened. I exchanged e-mails with Rigobón, M.C.Machado, Carter Center, Smartmatic, Media reporters, and many others (and insulted a few because yes, I do loose my temper sometimes). Saw the day to day modification of web-pages by some of the involved scientists. Called Venezuelan radio programs (from the U.S.) to share my views. And as many Venezuelans I saw the pictures of 'parallel' voting centers, heard the interviews to eye witnesses, saw the thrown away boxes of voting slips. And had to take a leave from work to recover of the emotional stress all this caused me. So now, you can believe it, or not, it's your choice. But for some reason I doubt that your involvement even comes close to comparing with mine.
So you now tell me that _all_ you need is the verification of the Carter Center and the 'approval' of the OAS. Well, you want to talk about that, let me tell you a bit about that, and remember this is not the point.
First, all the preliminaries of the CC report confirm what I have said and reduces the standards for democracy by just making hollow recommendations (none of which have been followed BTW). But on its analysis it discards some hypotheses of fraud (that I have discarded too), and sees others in a different light (which would require more verification), misinterprets much of Haussman & Rigobón's work, and makes erroneous conclusions about the most damaging one, the validity of the so-called 'audit'. Their own graph shows _exactly_ the same discrepancy as H&R's report, but they chose to present the graph with a completely distorted X-axis, in my opinion to disguise the contradiction (and I have wondered if this is grounds enough for a lawsuit in the U.S.). The CC 'independent' scientific panel that was conformed for this report, was composed of scientists that had _already_ given an opinion before forming the panel, and some of them had their models corrected and invalidated by Venezuelan Scientists, before the panel was even conceived. H&R were not invited to present and explain to the panel their report, as any reputable scientific institution would do in such cases, and thus clearing the misinterpretations. So, how can _I_ trust the CC report, when I can see its many flaws.
On the OAS, I clearly remember the 'snap' that Carter had towards the opposition after the RR (I saw it on TV) and that made the political opposition walk away. I also saw Gaviria correct him when what Carter was saying was plainly false. I remember Gaviria's OAS intervention after the RR, the one that caused Chavez to call him a 'liar.' And I remember the OAS vote to 'throw everything under the rug' (a vote that surprised many Venezuelans after what Gaviria had said), because after two years of negotiations they decided that they just wanted to move on. So do you trust the U.N.?, well the OAS is as bad or worse.
Also the EU refused to observe the RR because, as they said, the conditions had not been met for an appropriate verification of democratic elections.
Now you know why I don't find any of your 'facts' trustworthy. And remember the _result_ of the RR is not the issue (we don't know the real outcome), the democratic systems are. And if you follow the other blogger's links (including the new ones I added) you can find the original sources, I lived them, I don't need them. I don't have the time, and as I said, it is not the point.
http://aporrea.org/dameverbo.php?docid=66452
Just a little something about the media you began to watch when you suddenly were more intersted about Venezuela.
The meat of the HRW report is that Chavez illegally packed the courts by passing the law without a 2/3 majority.
The constitution requires a 2/3 majority of those present in order for this law to be passed. Can you prove that 2/3 of those present did not vote for the law?
So the existence of democracy rests on our ability to verify an election, fine. But then you ignore clear evidence that the election WAS VERIFIED, and you cling to REFUTED arguments that claimed it was not valid.
At some point, people get on with their lives and stop catering to a shrinking minority that won't accept facts and continues to moan about "lost democracy" when most know that for better or worse, this the most democratic government Venezuela has had in a while.
You've ignored this before and will doubtless ignore it again, coming from me or anybody else who "opposes" you, who you will call a "PSF" no matter what our point of view. You are in the midst of a collective identity crisis of the Venezuelan elite and middle classes which bought their 4th democracy sham.
So now _I_ have to prove what HRW reports (among many, many, others), I guess they are also 'opposition' for you. Why don't you prove otherwise.
And you say the election 'was verified,' by whom?. What venezuelan court heard any case regarding the RR?. What institution verified that the CNE followed _any_ of the recomendations of the Carter Center in their final report? (hint: they have not followed any, and have made it worse). What venezuelan court 'refuted' any of the presented evidence?.
And the 'most democratic government?' when a previous president was impeached and removed from power with 1/1000000 of the illegalities that Chavez has done so far?. Your concept of democracy seems a little skewed to me.
Oh, and should I say: The pot calling the kettle black?. That's some nerve you got there.
Commenting by HaloScan
