Obama stickin' it to the little man

[guartz]

when you say protectionism, are you talking about protecting local businesses and ensuring a people enjoy the fruits of their labor and resources or protecting the interests of capitalist multinationals?

I see what you did there. You and I both agree that small farmers and local merchants wouldn't need assistance if large multi-national corporations didn't exist, and multi-nationals wouldn't exist without government protection.

Here are the semantics I mentioned. Governments sustain military and political power through taxation, when you say corporations purchase the government, the actual cost of having a standing army or spies or special forces far exceeds that which is attainable of a, say, a fruit company, or an oil company. Even if the corporations actually bribe the government, and that's a big if, the amount paid is a pittance compared to the full cost of said operation.

The majority of the burden is paid by, quite unwittingly, by the same small farmers and local merchants.

[Kuya]

No idea why we're talking about companies. Did i miss something happening in Honduras or is this just a slight detour in terms of topic?

Well guartz, it is also relative to the government's power. The richer they are, the more they tend to use companies, and the poorer they are, the more they may be used by companies. You have the example of the telecommunications companies helping the US government spy on citizens with the full protection of the government, plus a nice business profit here. But you also have the case when you have a weaker government where companies might be able to bend it, like in the case of the Ogoni people where Shell basically hired the government to suppress them.

[guartz]

you mean Shell bribed the government.

[Kuya]

Yes.

[guartz]

Okay then.

[Kuya]

Here is an argument from Alberto Valiente where he corrects misconceptions over this issue. Some have argued that the coup was legal (ignoring that the correct avenue of removing the president was via impeachement) because the president was trying to extend his terms limits, however that is not quite true:

The Honduran Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General, National Congress, Armed Forces and Supreme Electoral Tribunal have all falsely accused Manuel Zelaya of attempting a referendum to extend his term in office.

According to Honduran law, this attempt would be illegal. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution clearly states that persons, who have served as presidents, cannot be presidential candidates again. The same article also states that public officials who breach this article, as well as those that help them, directly or indirectly, will automatically lose their immunity and are subject to persecution by law. Additionally, articles 374 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (with amendments of 2005), clearly state that: “it is not possible to reform the Constitution regarding matters about the form of government, presidential periods, re-election and Honduran territory”, and that “reforms to article 374 of this Constitution are not subject to referendum.”

Nevertheless, this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do in Honduras the past Sunday and which the Honduran political/military elites disliked so much. President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.

Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article 373 of the current constitution, in which the National Congress has to approve with 2/3 of the votes, any reform to the 1982 Constitution, excluding reforms to articles 239 and 374. This means that a perfectly legal National Constituent Assembly would have a greater mandate and fewer limitations than the National Congress, because such a National Constituent Assembly would not be reforming the Constitution, but re-writing it. The National Constituent Assembly’s mandate would come directly from the Honduran people, who would have to approve the new draft for a constitution, unlike constitutional amendments that only need 2/3 of the votes in Congress. This popular constitution would be more democratic and it would contrast with the current 1982 Constitution, which was the product of a context characterized by counter-insurgency policies supported by the US-government, civil façade military governments and undemocratic policies. In opposition to other legal systems in the Central American region that (directly or indirectly) participated in the civil wars of the 1980s, the Honduran one has not been deeply affected by peace agreements and a subsequent reformation of the role played by the Armed Forces.

The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya’s term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya’s term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected. Moreover, it is completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term. Likewise, even if the Honduran public had decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new constitution. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the 1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239 and 374. The National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate from the people, would derogate the previous constitution before approving the new one. The people, not president Zelaya, who by that time would be ex-president Zelaya, would decide.

[guartz]

Is he there yet? I'm afraid to turn on the news due to Michael Jackson.

[Skjie]

Moneyed U.S. corporations have a long and storied history of pressuring US policy to put US-friendly leaders in power in order to continue the supply of cheap goods and/or produce.

See: Banana republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honduras was considered to be the first Banana Republic.

Oh, that's old news. I thought he was going somewhere else with that, for some reason.

[Kuya]

An update to the situation: Apparently, Lanny Davis is now lobbying for the Honduras coup regime. He has close ties to the Clinton family and is well regarded as being capable of selling his own mother for a dollar.

News story:

It seems like just yesterday that Lanny Davis was making the rounds of every news outlet that would have him, talking up Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House -- and/or pushing the Reverend Wright story.

And now the hardest working conservative Democrat in show business has a new gig: lobbying against the Honduran leader recently deposed in a military coup.

The Hill reports that Davis has been hired by the Honduran branch of CEAL, the Latin American equivalent of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to urge US lawmakers to support, rather than oppose, the military removal of President Manuel Zelaya, Honduras's democratically elected president.

Of course, thanks to his close ties to the current Secretary of State -- who met with Zelaya yesterday -- Davis could be particularly well placed for the job. But the Fox News contributor said he had no plans to set up a meeting between Clinton and the current and former Honduran government officials with whom he's working.

Although last month Zelaya was taken from his bed by the military and forcibly removed from the country, Davis portrayed his work for the coup's supporters as all about law and order:

Lanny has done this before, according to a report yesterday on DemocracyNow:

KEN SILVERSTEIN: Well, I mean, Davis really is the guy—I think the primary guy they’ve hired, the one who’s got the most influence. And I would point out about Davis is that he has a track record. It’s sort of ironic. I’ve seen bloggers say, “Gee, how could Lanny Davis do this? You know, it’s so surprising, this Democrat.” Well, there’s very little Lanny Davis won’t do for money, actually. I mean, he has a long track record of working for very, very difficult—is the polite way of putting it—clients. He has worked for dictators in the past. In 1999, when he was at Patton Boggs, one of the big law firms here, he worked for a Kazakh front group, just as he’s working for a Honduran front group now. He worked for a Kazakh front group that was acting on behalf of President Nazarbayev, and Lanny Davis was out there trying to convince the world that Nazarbayev was a democratic reformer who was really trying to bring democracy to Kazakhstan. Well, guess what. That was ten years ago. And guess who’s president of Kazakhstan right now. President Nazarbayev, one of the most corrupt leaders around the world. So Davis has a long track record of working for these people. And—

As an addenum, apparently, two opposition leaders were assassinated in Honduras. This Lanny guy is quite a problem, since he was sucessfully at making a tyrant seem like a democratic reformer, and he also has very close ties to the Clintons and the Democrats. Watch Washington's reaction closely, as they may start playing this just like they did in Haiti with Aristide.

[Kael]

Actually we kinda are... There are set ways of changing it if need be, which no one in that country did.

Then why does the GOP like to wipe its ass with it when its suits their needs?

[bigrougabagel]

saw thread title, prayed for midget joke, got walls of text. dammit...

[Olo401]

saw thread title, prayed for midget joke, got walls of text. dammit...

No sir.. this is general not spam we don't do that shit here!