Saturday, April 02, 2005

Irresponsible Government official promotes war and hate against the US I find the statements by the head of the Land Institute Eliecer Otaiza to be extremely offensive. This is no way to lead a country and to promote hate and resentment against anyone is irresponsible and racist. No Government official should be allowed to promote hate against any nation, racial or social group. This is the way to destroy a country not build it. Governments should promote harmony and civilized behavior, not savagery. This is verbatim what Otaiza said in the interview in local weekly Quinto Dia: Q. Are you getting ready for a war? A. The first thing we have to recognize is that when you go to war, you have to begin to hate the opponent. You can not go to war loving the person. Effectively, the bonds we have with the United States, political, historical are too closely joined, but we have to prepare ourselves to begin to see the gringos as enemies, and that would be the first preparation for combat. Q. We have to hate the gringos? We have to prepare the people so that they hate the gringos? A. If we are going to war we can not do it by saying we are friends. We are going to war to shot each other, not to embrace each other. Then, the first preparation is to understand that you have an enemy, the second, that it will be a prolonged war, of at least seven, eight, nine years and that it will be a war of resistance, where the gringos may end in two days all of the war equipment we have. It is a very cruel situation for us, and we understand that the whole country and maybe the whole continent will be involved. Q. Do you think the country will embark in an adventure like this one? A. The problem is not whether we will embark in it or not, the problem is where we are. This guy is absolutely crazy, nuts, irresponsible and I am ashamed that he holds an important office in my country. Not only that, but previously he was Head of intelligence and Head of the Trade Educational Institute (INCE). He now leads the land institute (INTI), the same one that has been expropriating land in the last few months. Although I know it is useless, as a civilized Venezuelan I request that the Venezuelan Government fire Mr. Otaiza for his irresponsible and immoral statements. 12:16:12 PM    comment []

Debate among revolutionaries Milagros Socorro in yesterday’s El Nacional has the interesting story of the documentary producers who made the film “Another way is possible…in Venezuela” three years ago. The documentary turned out to be very popular so that the Cultural office (CONAC) of the Chavez administration brought them back for a second documentary. Except that… This time around the movie makers worked for more than the nine days spent in 2002 and stayed two months going around the country without in Socorro’s words “the commissars of the revolution pointing out what they had to film, and brought the images they found: a poor country, backwards, full of contradictions, of postponed aspirations, of evidence of corruption, that is, ready for a change.” The movie, entitled “Our oil and other tales” was shown for the first time On Feb. 23d. and again on March 4th. According to Socorro, the Minister of Culture almost stopped the second presentation. What is interesting according to Socorro is that the showing took place because other Chavistas demanded it shouting “revolution within the revolution” at the showing. This has reportedly led to a controversy around the film between pro-Chavez’ groups. It also led to a firm response on the part of the filmmakers who wrote a firm open letter to the Minister of Culture. That letter says in part: “A novel and open process of change like the one taking place in Venezuela can not just occur in linear fashion. We dare say this with some authority having captured it in our earlier film “Another way is possible…” that has gone around the world contributing to an important source of international backing for this process….It should be evident that in this path nothing, nor anybody, should be exempt of the social comptrolling and the critical capability of the people. As Socorro says “What a pity that that such statements have not been expressed by Venezuelan intellectuals that believe in the “process” The film apparently paints a bleak and black picture of Venezuela:” There is a tone of sadness and misery throughout it. The film concludes that the Government and Chavez are responsible for a variety of calamities and have betrayed the process of transformation. “ Socorro concludes by saying: “If all revolutionaries would repudiate the cult of personality and would promote the accountability of power (which implies the separation of powers) and would point out how malignant any form of apology for the Government and its hegemony can be, I would assure you that I would not be insulted with the qualifier of “squalid”. I would be on their side.” As usual, well said Mrs. Socorro! 12:02:52 AM    comment []