Microsoft Versus Venezuela

[Joanne98]

Yesterday, Microsoft MSN (Spain) featured a montage photo of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and the ex president of Cuba, Fidel Castro, wearing king's crowns, accompanied by the colourful title, "When power corrupts: Striving to be kings." The Venezuelan government and a grassroots technology movement here are both promoting the use and creation of open source (free) software, so it's no surprise that software tyrant, Microsoft, is lambasting Chavez.

Following the MSN headline was a slide show of photos of nine world leaders with paragraphs accompanying each, describing just how undemocratic and power hungry they all are. All of the leaders bar two are from Latin America or East Asia, reflecting the racist sentiment that the "West" is democratic perfection. Also, perhaps just a coincidence, East Asia and Latin America are regions with some of the strongest open source software movements.

Ironically, of the two Western leaders featured, the king of Spain is the one leader of the whole bunch who wasn't in any way elected, whilst the other, Napoleon, is long dead.

The paragraph accompanying Chavez's photo read, "Hugo Chavez is in it for the long run. He has touched up laws at his whim and for his own interest. And why not, he did the same with the constitution that he devised in 1999 but in which he made one mistake: term limits. After his first election (1999) and the two after that (2001 and 2007), the law hasn't allowed him the option of running again as president. And instead of accepting that, he changed the law."

First of all, MSN, do your research. The last presidential election was in 2006, not 2007. Secondly, the commentary does not mention that the constitution (created by a constitutional assembly with members elected by the public) and the constitutional amendment were both approved by popular referendum.

MSN, the default home page for Microsoft Internet Explorer, and a hub page of Microsoft services such as Hotmail, Messenger, downloads, "news", a search engine, advertisements and so on, is just an extension, or a facilitator, of the Microsoft software and technology empire.

It is hard to miss the irony of such an unaccountable, billion dollar, US based multinational corporation which monopolises its industry, calling a president who has held 15 elections (amendments, referendums, recalls, regional elections and so on) in 10 years, a wannabe king.

Microsoft, founded in 1975 by current billionaire Bill Gates, and Paul Allen, is the producer of Microsoft Windows, Word, Explorer, Messenger, and so on. It has risen to dominance by patenting products frequently based on other people's work or on common, global ideas. It monopolises the computer world through its ownership of the operating system Windows, and through a strategy of program compatibility. Then it multiplies its profits by convincing (and obliging) program users to buy upgrades every few years.

In 1994 Microsoft's operating system was driving 93% of the world's desktops, and its software- 90% of the market. The company has, what basically amounts to, tyrannical control over software, and by extension, computers, the internet, and modern communication. It's domination of information- how it is accessed, produced, processed, and organised, is dangerous.

The open source software movement is challenging such domination. The movement, which developed Linux, the free operating system, for example, sees information as vital to human development and something that should not be for profit, but rather for personal development, awareness, and expression. Software is a social creation rather than a private creation, where users around the world can add code to code, and fix bugs on a daily basis rather than via regular, purchasable, upgrades.

Continued>>>
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4633

[Fearless]

1. So Hugo Chaves < bad < Microsoft?

This should be fun. :popcorn:

[Deja Q]

2. The article can't even name Microsoft's products correctly!

"Explorer" = "Internet Explorer", "MSN Explorer", well??

"Messenger" = (a component of) "Windows Live"??

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. It is pretty tinfoilish. When MS started enforcing licensing a number of places got into Linux

The good news is the the free software movement has bloomed so they can continue to leech from it vice MS.

Author does not seem to know the difference between MS and MSN either.

[MADem]

3. Chavez did insult Spain at a meeting of world leaders, rather vilely.

This isn't about Microsoft, it's about a newswriter who works for MSN Spain accurately targeting an audience.

Most Spaniards thought Chavez was an ass (and he was, and they still do) for dissing their former prime minister at a meeting--Chavez called him all sorts of foul names and kept interrupting the speakers like a three year old with too much sugar in his system.

Their king, who isn't a "ruler" in the sense that we know it--he's closer to Queen Elizabeth in his actual "power" (which he ceded voluntarily, serving only as a transition leader between Franco and establishment of a parliamentary democracy)--was acting in an ambassadorial capacity at the meeting and asked Chavez, "¿Por qué no te callas?"

It earned him rave reviews for saying what everyone thought--they even made it a ring-tone. He came home a hero after that.

JC is a good guy who does good works and is quite humble.

And, FWIW, he's a damned sight nicer than Franco was--but Spain isn't "ruled" or "led" by JC at all. They actually have elections there, and the current PM is a guy named Zapatero, who is a socialist.

[Peace Patriot]

5. The prior PM of Spain was a corrupt Bush crony, and avid supporter of the invasion of

Iraq--in which ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND INNOCENT IRAQIS were slaughtered in the bombing of Baghdad alone--and Chavez was accusing Zapatero and the "King" of Spain (who elected him?) of covering up that PM's complicity in the violent rightwing military coup against the ELECTED Chavez government in 2002.

Chavez had reason to be good and pissed off at Spain, and if he got a little rude, and spoke out of turn, while he sat listening to this mealy-mouthed Spanish "socialist," so what?

You say: The "King" telling Chavez to shut up "earned him rave reviews for saying what everyone thought." Who is everyone, hm? Did you poll "everyone"? Did you poll the vast poor majority in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico? Who is "everyone" to you? Latin Americans who can afford computers?

You say: The "King" of Spain "is a good guy who does good works and is quite humble." Oh, come on. The "King" of Spain represents Spanish and EU financial interests in Latin America. He is no better and no worse than any other such advocate. Every global corporate predator on earth "does good works" as PR. The US parades all sorts of "aid"--billions and billions of dollars worth (in US taxpayer money)--poured into every rightwing group in Latin America through USAID and other budgets, not to help the people who need help, but to produce corporate-friendly governments. The US military is even now running some "hospital ship" up and down the coast of Latin America, while the US government pours billions of dollars into supporting governments that DO NOT PROVIDE HEALTH CARE for their people, and demonizing and trying to unseat the governments that DO--first among them, the Chavez government in Venezuela.

So don't tell me about "good works" among kings and corporate potentates! Or how very "humble" the "king" is. A "king" who tells the ELECTED president of a country, who has done more for the empowerment and betterment of the poor than the "king of Spain" will ever do, to "shut up," is not a "hero," in my view. I would say it was more a sign of guilt.

[MADem]

7. I don't care if Spain's PM was a Pink Hippo in an orange tutu. Chavez was a fucking rude asshole.

And all of the "ALL CAPS" and "so don't tell mes" will never make his crazed, whacko, attention-seeking conduct justifiable.

You said:

...Chavez was accusing Zapatero and the "King" of Spain (who elected him?) of covering up that PM's complicity in the violent rightwing military coup against the ELECTED Chavez government in 2002.

Hate to tell you this--but Zapatero wasn't even the PM in 2002. You plainly don't know your subject very well, otherwise you wouldn't have made that glaring and obvious error. The PM at the time Aznar, and he was a tighty righty, but he was duly elected, as Zapatero The Socialist Worker and Obama were.

Sorry--I side with Juan Carlos (as most of the attendees at the conference did), who knows a thing or two about consensus and decorum, and I also think Chavez is a crazy nutjob. But you go ahead and have some fun with your multi-paragraph umbrage. You seem to need it.

[Peace Patriot]

8. I guess you didn't notice the word "that"--"that PM," meaning the PM I had been referring to

in the previous sentences (Aznar)--the Bush buddy. It's an understandable mistake, and I forgive you. I do know who Aznar is. To tell you the truth, I couldn't remember how to spell his name--whether it's Aznar or Anzar. I'm a bit dyslexic. So I just skipped it. If I'd put his name in, perhaps my point would have been clearer. Chavez was accusing the previous PM (Anzar--I did it again; I mean Aznar) of complicity in the coup, and the "King" and the current PM (Zapatero) of covering it up. Given the plots against Chavez, of which the rightwing military coup attempt in 2002 is just one, rudeness is understandable, if not polite and diplomatic. Chavez is not known for being polite and diplomatic (although, in truth, he usually is). He called Bush "the devil" at the UN. I can't say I disagreed with that. And, when Rafael Correa was asked about it, he replied that "it's an insult to the devil." (He then went on the win his first election as president of Ecuador by a big margin; he'd been running neck and neck with the big banana magnate. I don't know if his remark caused his numbers to soar, but they did shortly afterward.)

To dismiss Chavez as "a crazy nutjob" is to make the same mistake that the Bushwhacks made--underestimating him, and his supporters--not just the big majorities of Venezuelans who keep voting for him (in elections that are far, far more transparent than our own), but also leaders like Lula da Silva of Brazil who dismissed the criticisms of Chavez on democracy as, well, nutjobberry--untrue. Chavez is neither a "nutjob" nor a "dictator." He is a very popular leader who tends to speak plainly and step on "sacred" toes. He is also well-read and has many friends and allies among the leadership of Latin America. Are you saying that someone like Lula da Silva is stupid, and has been taken in by "crazy nutjob" Chavez? Da Silva meets with him regularly--on a monthly basis--on all manner of economic and political matters. Would da Silva hold such close consultations with "a crazy nutjob"? Or a "dictator"--and lie that Chavez is a democrat? I cannot believe that. And nothing that Chavez has said or done strikes me as "crazy" (nor "dictatorial").

I think it's interesting that it was Zapatero who was the one speaking--not the "King"--when Chavez interrupted him (Zapatero). Why didn't the "King" let Zapatero handle his own problem, rather than jumping in to tell Chavez to shut up? Our corpo/fascist media loved it, of course--but I read reports that the "King" then stormed out of the room. Why was he so angry and defensive? And, if it was just lack of diplomacy/rudeness, why couldn't Zapatero handle it? He's an experienced public speaker--the PM of his country. There are many ways to handle an interruption.

Anyway, as I said, I found the flap interesting, and I think we need to dig deeper than just saying, "Oh, that Chavez, he's crazy," or whatever. That's too superficial for me. I think there was a lot more going on.

[MADem]

9. Mark my words. Chavez will end badly. He reminds me of

Ayatullah Khameinei--trying to bribe the poor with oil revenues, and not making any decent investment in the nation.

We see what's happening in Iran now. It took some time, but Iran's oil money can no longer support that corrupt and failed government.

The same will happen with VZ--already they've gone to supplementing their income with drug money.

It's only a matter of time before there are no more handouts, no more "penis phones," no more half days off to give...and the natives will start to get restless. They're only "loyal" to Chavez so long as he gives them scraps and crumbs.

Chavez is a bloated red shirt. He isn't a leader, he's a briber.

[Peace Patriot]

10. You really ought to take a ginger pill. They're great for calming the stomach.

Sorry. It's just that your statements against Chavez are so emotional that I'm having trouble understanding them. You said that Chavez was acting childish, i.e. distempered (by interrupting Zapatero), but isn't it childish to make accusations like these--Chavez is "a bloated red shirt," a "briber," is giving people "scraps and crumbs," and, as a consequence, they are turning to "drug money" to supplement their income--without providing a basis in facts? I wouldn't say that universal health care is "scrap and crumbs," nor subsidies to attend school, nor free college tuition, nor title to farm land (if you earn it, over a five year period, by producing food), nor price-subsidized food (if you are very poor), nor grants and loans to small business, nor programs like the Venezuelan Children's Orchestra (benefiting tens of thousands of poor children with classical music training), and the building and equipping of baseball fields in poor areas. These are material helps with forward-looking goals. You could accuse any politician of "bribing" the people by providing them with what they want and need. It's an unfair accusation. The Chavez government has meanwhile been saving $43 billion in international cash reserves--giving Venezuela some immunity and flexibility in dealing with the Bushwhacks' Financial 9/11--and it oversaw a period of extraordinary economic growth--nearly 10% over the 2003 to 2008 period--most of it in the private sector (not including oil). So they have been doing something right, as to economic management. I really don't understand your "bribery" comment. Isn't that what a good leader does--answers the needs of the people? And isn't that what the people do in response--keep voting for him? What's wrong with that? Isn't that democracy?

Let me put it this way: Which of the above programs would you have the Chavez government stop, because they are mere "bribery"?

[MADem]

11. Please try to not project your feelings upon me. You expose your own weakness when you do that.

See, that's what folks do when they can't argue on the merits. They get personal, like you just did, in rather cheap and obvious fashion.

My stomach is fine, and I'm unemotional about Chavez. I can look at a fat, lying and incompetent nitwit and see him for what he is. He's a blowhard. A liar. A shitty leader. A lot like Ahmadinejad, actually, only with more authority in his nation.

But hey, keep reading his propaganda and lapping it up. His farmland schemes are a joke, he fights with all his neighbors, his health care is entirely dependent upon an oil-for-doctors scheme with Cuba that would implode if US ever rapproached with Cuba, and his strategy to lift the poor only so high, and no more smacks of the improvement between slavery and indentured servitude. All the while, his infrastructure is CRUMBLING, crime, to include robbery, burglary, and murder, is through the roof, and oil revenues do not keep pace with his promises. And VZ is in the drug business in a big way, now.

I can see that you've bought the bullshit, though. The guy is a dictator who wants to change the Constitution so he can be President for Life. That's not democracy--that's hubris on steroids.

Cracks are also showing in Chávez's much-vaunted revolutionary programs. In The Hugo Chávez Show, FRONTLINE speaks with workers in various socialized cooperatives who say Chávez's government has failed to provide needed resources, or even to pay them for the work they have done.

"I am among the poorest people in Venezuela," says cooperative worker Maria Rengifo. "The president has to know, in order to form a cooperative, we have to have income. ... He has to know what's going on. Why aren't they functioning? Why aren't they producing? Why isn't there anything to produce?"

With frustration building and food shortages common, Venezuela's crime rate has soared, with murders, robberies and kidnappings for ransom occurring frequently. "It's shocking to come nearly a decade on and see that most of what Hugo Chávez was railing in anger about being left with—a failed society, misery, insecurity, unequal distribution of wealth—is still here," Anderson tells FRONTLINE. "That despite these surely thousands of hours of speeches and many billions of dollars of oil wealth pumped into the economy, we don't see huge changes. We see, in fact, that most of Hugo Chávez's revolutionary programs, his inventions to ameliorate and alleviate the social ills at home simply have not worked."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hugochavez/view/#more

That bears repeating:

"That despite these surely thousands of hours of speeches and many billions of dollars of oil wealth pumped into the economy, we don't see huge changes. We see, in fact, that most of Hugo Chávez's revolutionary programs, his inventions to ameliorate and alleviate the social ills at home simply have not worked."

[Peace Patriot]

13. "...so he can be President for Life."

"The guy is a dictator who wants to change the Constitution so he can be President for Life. That's not democracy--that's hubris on steroids."

Our own FDR was "president for life." So what? FDR ran for and won four terms in office, and died in his fourth term. "President for life." We didn't have a term limit for the President in the US until the mid-1950s, when the Republicans rammed it through so that there could never be a "New Deal" in the US ever again, and so that they could begin to unravel the one we had (which they've very nearly succeeded in doing). Most of our Founders opposed term limits as undemocratic. That's why they did not include term limits in the Constitution. Term limits was a rightwing invention, because they know damn well that, if the majority poor manages to find a leader who will act in their interest, they will keep electing him.

There is nothing inherently wrong--undemocratic or evil--with someone running for and being elected to public office, several times, or to the end of his or her life. Many current democracies have no term limit on the chief executive. The key is ELECTED. And in Venezuela they have far, far more transparent elections than we do here--monitored and certified by every election monitoring group in the world, and transparent, honest and fair on the facts of the election system alone.

President Chavez did not change the Venezuelan Constitution. His government put the matter of term limits--not just on the president, but on other officers including the governors of states (many currently held by rightwingers)--to a vote of the people! That is far more democratic than our system, in which you and I never get to vote on the Constitution. The people of Venezuela voted overwhelmingly to lift term limits on the president, on governors and other officers. Is putting things to a vote of the people the action of a "dictator"? Clearly--by every indicator, including opinion polls, election results over the last decade, surveys of public approval of the direction of the country, etc.--the great majority of Venezuelans approve of Chavez and his government. Why shouldn't they have the right to re-elect them, when they give the government such high approval ratings, consistently over time, and today? In fact, those who would deny the right of the people to amend their Constitution in this way, and to elect the leaders that they want, are the tyrants--not Chavez.

You really ought to look into the situation in Peru, to see what a truly corrupt government with no public support looks like. There, the Bushwhack choice for president, Alan Garcia, has something like a 25% approval rating, and is trying to impose US-dominated "free trade" including multinational rape of the Amazon by mining and other interests. The indigenous are in rebellion. The unions are in rebellion. And the government has declared martial law in certain areas in order to crush the protests.

In Venezuela, the indigenous have a voice, and were able to stop some of the worst mining operations. Maybe they don't have as much of a voice as they would like to have (and probably should have). But they have SOME voice. It's a democracy. Everybody gets a say. And the government--if it is of, by and for the people--mediates among those interests as fairly as it can. And there is a similar situation in Ecuador (leftist government allied with Chavez). The indigenous and other environmentalists now have a say. Unions now have a say. The poor now has a say. And the left in both countries constantly criticizes the leftist governments for not being left enough!

Isn't that how it should be--rather than having US-funded troops crushing protests, in a country with a despised government, like Peru? Democracy is not a perfect system. It doesn't and can't solve all problems. And whatever problems there are are right out there, for all to see--not covered up by a tyrannical government (such as we see in Colombia). If Chavez were a "dictator," he would take care of street crime fast enough, and then you would criticize him for being...um...a "dictator." Police brutality! Merciless sentencing! Packed jails! The poor rounded up! Street crime is not even his jurisdiction or direct responsibility. It's the responsibility of governors and mayors and local police forces--some of which are rightwingers. Is Obama responsible for every street crime in the US? That's ridiculous.

The thing that you don't seem to want to address is conditions in Venezuela before the Chavez government was elected. The rightwing governments that ruled Venezuela, prior to Chavez, utterly neglected the poor, education, health care, local manufacturing, land reform, food self-sufficiency, and everything that makes a good country, and furthermore were giving away the oil profits (the oil was nationalized long before Chavez) to multinational corporations, in a 10/90 split favoring the multinationals. The Chavez government re-negotiated those contracts to eventually achieve a 60/40 split of the profits, favoring the Venezuelan people. The Chavez government has used those profits in several ways: on education, health care and other bootstrapping of the poor; to stimulate the economy producing astonishing economic growth of nearly 10% over a five year period; and to put away cash reserves for just such an economic crisis as the current one caused by the Bushwhacks.

How else should that money be spent? To line the pockets of the rich? It may be that not every program is successful--or has had time to be successful (such as land reform and food self-sufficiency--very difficult problems, considering what prior governments did to Venezuela). At least the Chavez government is trying to solve them. Prior governments did nothing--nothing!--about the vast poverty in Venezuela. They utterly neglected that and everything else, and then put troops on the street to shoot people when they protested.

I think your view IS emotional. You hate Chavez, and you try to martial all these rightwing "talking points" about how bad he is, that evaporate upon close inspection. He is not perfect. He is no saint. He's a politician! What he does--his policies, his programs, his goals--are a reflection of the people who elected him. It is THEY who want education, health care, loans/grants to small business, better oil contracts--oil contracts that benefit them--and so on. When you demonize him, you demonize them.

That is what I mean by emotional. You focus on Chavez, and ignore the fact that the people of Venezuela support him. To me it greatly resembles the loathing that our rich elite here felt for FDR. They hated him. They focused all their venom against the poor and the workers on him. They demonized him and called him a "dictator," just as the right does now to Chavez. They truly, in their hearts, did not want democracy. They wanted to dictate who was president--someone to act in their minority interests--and they got their wish with Bush, who tried to put the final nail in the coffin of the "New Deal" (by privatizing Social Security).

So, I ask you again: What Chavez government programs would you put an end to, if you could override the will of the people of Venezuela, and do whatever you wish? Government support for education of the poor? Adult literacy programs? The government paying for shoes, so the poorest children can go to school? Community health clinics, in areas never before served by government? Help to small business? Earned land title for producing food? Low cost housing? Local production of the machine parts for the oil industry (all imported before)? The building of the new Orinoco Bridge and other infrastructure? Government subsidy for elderly women to cook food in neighborhood kitchens for local workers--to employ the elderly women, foster community and provide home-cooked food for the workers? You regard these positive programs--and the Chavez government's accomplishments (dramatic reductions in illiteracy, in infant mortality, in extreme poverty; dramatic improvements in economic growth, in the oil benefits for Venezuelans, in public participation, in transparent vote counting)--with contempt. What is YOUR program for Venezuela? And how many Venezuelans do you represent in your plan for Venezuela?

[MADem]

14. So what? It's not democracy, is so what.. What, it's "good" because FDR did it?

If it was so frigging good, why did we change the Constitution to prevent that shit from ever happening again?

:banghead:

Such....logic!

You want to know what programs I'd axe? I'd put an end to most of his stupid programs--you know, all the ones cited in that link that don't work and are failures on a massive scale. I'd put an end to his money giveaways for no work, his time off for no work, his breaking up of efficient farms (that provided substantial state revenue, ameliorating the need to IMPORT basic foodstuffs, and provided actual employment to real, local people skilled in agriculture), and gave small, unsustainable plots to city slickers who are now starving (and many have abandoned those plots) because they don't fucking know how to grow food and don't have enough equipment to do it, I'd stop wasting money on "penis phones," I'd change "Allo Presidente" into continuing education classes...just for starters.

Chavez is making money for Chavez, make no mistake. That bastard isn't getting fatter every year on rice and beans and hard work. He regards VZ as his own little kingdom, and he relies on wide-eyed suckers like you to ignore the painfully obvious and bang the drum for him. And the people who "support" him? They're the ones that are left, after the mass exodus of those who were able to scrape together the plane fare and find a friend to stay with and flee their homes, jobs and lives for anywhere that wasn't VZ.

Bribing poor people is not democracy. Throwing the dog a bone isn't democracy. The place is a third world shithole, worse that the third world shithole that it was ten years ago. And Chavez is to blame, entirely. He mismanaged it. His government is corrupt, skimming money from the treasury, and it's happening at all levels. And drug trafficking is lining pockets from top to bottom, too.

Oh, and when you use the "Well, gee, Peru is WORSE" argument, you've lost.

Man, you've OD'd on the Kool Aid. Open your eyes--LOOK. VZ is way worse now than it was ten years ago. I'm not saying the government ten years ago was any good, EITHER...but Chavez is a fat man in an empty suit, who talks, and talks, and talks...but his ideas are shit. They're not sustainable. And he brooks no geniune opposition, beats people in the streets who dare to protest... so what does that tell you about how "democratic" he is?

One more time--don't put your own "emotional" labels on me. That kind of conduct telegraphs your weakness. I have a clear-eyed view of what's actually happening there. You don't, and you're name calling and characterizing because you're suffering from profound cognitive dissonance.

[Peace Patriot]

6. "TRADE SECRET" vs OPEN SOURCE code is also an issue in VOTE COUNTING.

In the U.S., all of our votes are now 'counted' by rightwing corporations, using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code--in the case of Diebold* and its spawn, ES&S, the Windows architecture--with virtually no audit/recount controls. And when I say "rightwing," I mean hair-raising rightwing--for instance, the head of Diebold was a major fundraiser for Bush/Cheney, and promised, in writing, to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush/Cheney in 2004," and the initial funder and major investor in ES&S (a spinoff of Diebold) is Howard Ahmanson, the far rightwing billionaire who also gave a million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals (among other things).

Thus, the worst elements of our political culture have, in fact, easy, undetectable control of the results of our elections. No one--not even our secretaries of state--is permitted to review the 'TRADE SECRET' code by which our votes are tallied. Half the states in the country do NO auditing of election results--comparison of electronic totals with actual ballots (many of them still have no paper trail at all)--and the other half do a completely inadequate 1% audit. (Experts whom I respect say that a 10% audit is the minimum needed to detect fraud.)

In Venezuela, by contrast, while they use electronic voting, it is an OPEN SOURCE system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are counted--and they handcount a whopping 55% of the votes as a check on machine fraud--more than five times the minimum needed.

Our politicos are fond of calling Hugo Chavez a "dictator" while there is hardly an elected official in this country--up to and including Barack Obama--who can prove that he or she was actually elected. The proof is not there. I happen to believe that Obama was elected, but that his margin was significantly and fraudulently shaved, to reduce his mandate and curtail reform of our government. I have good reason to believe this, but I can't prove it. The proof is not there..

And what does that say about U.S. vs. Venezuelan democracy? Transparent vote counting is the bottom-line of democracy. Without it, you don't really have a democracy. Whatever you think of Hugo Chavez--and do beware of our corpo/fascist press, and our political establishment, on their "Chavez is a dictator" bullshit--he can prove that he was elected, and furthermore, is head of a government which insists upon transparent elections. Does Obama? Does Biden? Does Pelosi? Does Reid? They have yet to speak one word against 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and controlled by far rightwing corporations. I wonder why not.

Our system all along should have been OPEN SOURCE. Why isn't it?

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

*(Note: Diebold has changed its name to "Premier Election Systems," no doubt due to its notoriety. Be alert to this, if you are vetting election systems in your state.)

[Wednesdays]

12. K&R

:kick: