Tuesday, February 06, 2007

If Venezuelans Have a Dictator, What Have We Here?

This is a letter to the editor of the Eureka Reporter that I wrote last Thursday night. It was published today, Tuesday Feb. 6, 2007. This letter is in response to this editorial:

http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=19997

The letter can be found here:

http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=20214

Failure to seek accountability has left citizens confused
by Dave Berman, Eureka, 2/6/2007

Glenn Franco Simmons recently described Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a dictator, tyrant, strongman and authoritarian. If Simmons can support this by citing stacked courts and monopolized rule, what should we conclude about Supreme Court Justices Alito and Roberts, six years of a rubber-stamping one-party legislative branch and only one veto but more than 1,000 signing statements?

If we can't claim ignorance of the Chavez regime's ruthlessness, as Simmons asserts, what is it that enables us to look the other way from those responsible for torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, willful neglect in New Orleans and depraved indifference to the constitutional role of the Congress in making war?

If Chavez is guilty of intimidating the media, as Simmons reported the U.S. State Department had determined, what are we to make of reporting so unquestioning that it continues to leave the unanswered questions of 9/11 unasked? So un-skeptical that it was completely wrong about the threat of WMD in Iraq (despite millions protesting in the street who knew better)? So cowed that even when felonies (warrantless wiretapping) are openly admitted there is still no call for accountability?

Chavez's "presidency" was referred to in quotes, as can often be seen in reference to another leader first appointed by the Supreme Court and later "re-elected" with voting equipment that could never be recounted or otherwise verified.

Simmons goes on to use many other colorful words, such as "disappearances," "extrajudicial killings" and "increased militarization of public administration." Should these words make Americans uncomfortable? Last fall, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act eliminating habeas corpus, meaning we can be jailed without charges, thus enabling "disappearances." U.S. military forces are augmented by paid mercenaries from Halliburton and Blackwater, making a living doing "extrajudicial killings." And last fall, Congress nullified Posse Comitatus, a 19th century law prohibiting the use of the U.S. military for domestic policing, yet another step toward "increased militarization of public administration."

I'm not so much interested in Chavez or anyone's opinion of him, really. What is more important is that newspaper editors acknowledge what is in plain sight. Reticence is tacit approval, a rather insidious way to throw in one's lot. The failure to question and seek accountability has left many good citizens understandably confused, or even "certain" with knowledge that is false. If Venezuelans are ruled by a dictator, tyrant, strongman and authoritarian, what have we here?

Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/02/if-venezuelans-have-dictator-what-have.html

Posted by Dave Berman - 11:26 PM | Permalink
Comments (1 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page
As shown on
Dave's new blog,
Manifest Positivity

We Do Not Consent, Volume 1 (left) and Volume 2 (right), feature essays from Dave Berman's previous blogs, GuvWurld and We Do Not Consent, respectively. Click the covers for FREE e-book versions (.pdf). As of April 2010, paperbacks are temporarily out of print. Click here for the author's bio.

Back Page Quotes

"Give a damn about the world you live in? Give a damn about what you and I both know is one of the most shameful and destructive periods in American history? If so, do something about it. You can start by reading We Do Not Consent."

— Brad Friedman, Creator/Editor, BradBlog.com; Co-Founder, VelvetRevolution.us


"If in the future we have vital elections, the "no basis for confidence" formulation that GuvWurld is popularizing will have been a historically important development. This is true because by implicitly insisting on verification and checks and balances instead of faith or trust in elections officials or machines as a basis for legitimacy, it encourages healthy transparent elections. It’s also rare that a political formulation approaches scientific certainty, but this formulation is backed up by scientific principles that teach that if you can’t repeat something (such as an election) and verify it by independent means, it doesn’t exist within the realm of what science will accept as established or proven truth."

— Paul Lehto, Attorney at Law, Everett, WA


"Dave Berman has been candid and confrontational in challenging all of us to be "ruthlessly honest" in answering his question, "What would be better?" He encourages us to build consensus definitions of "better," and to match our words with actions every day, even if we do only "the least we can do." Cumulatively and collectively, our actions will bring truth to light."

— Nezzie Wade, Sociology Professor, Humboldt State University and College of the Redwoods


"Dave Berman's work is quietly brilliant and powerfully utilitarian. His Voter Confidence Resolution provides a fine, flexible tool whereby any community can reclaim and affirm a right relation to its franchise as a community of voters."

— Elizabeth Ferrari, San Francisco, Green Party of California


"This is an important collection of essays with a strong unitary theme: if you can't prove that you were elected, we can't take you seriously as elected officials. Simple, logical, comprehensive. 'Management' (aka, the 'powers that be') needs to get the message. 'The machines' are not legitimizers, they're an artful dodge and a path to deception. We've had enough...and we most certainly DO NOT consent."

— Michael Collins covers the election fraud beat for "Scoop" Independent Media


"What's special about this book (and it fits because there's nothing more fundamental to Democracy than our vote) is the raising of consciousness. Someone recognizing they have no basis for trusting elections may well ask what else is being taken for granted."

— Eddie Ajamian, Los Angeles, CA


"I urge everyone to read "We Do Not Consent", and distribute it as widely as possible."

— B Robert Franza MD, author of We the People ... Have No Clothes: A Pamphlet for every American