Junot Diaz interview in Spanish

This interview was published by the arts & culture website REVISTA Ñ which is run by the Buenos Aires newspaper Clarín.

I haven’t seen too many interviews with Junot Diaz conducted entirely in Spanish.

An interesting range of topics from his latest novel, the immigrant experience in America, his use of Spanglish in his novel and more.

Junot refers to his sister’s kids as not being “spanglishparlantes”

Hillarious!!!!!!

“Ser inmigrante es como ser alcohólico: eso nunca se quita”

Entrevista al dominicano ganador del Premio Pulitzer 2008, que estará en Buenos Aires para la Feria del Libro.

Logró reconocimiento y atrajo lectores con su primera novela, escrita en un inglés mezclado con castellano que refleja el habla de los inmigrantes.
Por: Patricia Kolesnicov

¿No era que un escritor era, justamente, alguien con gran, gran dominio del lenguaje? ¿Tanto que podían florearse por diferentes registros? Bueno, miren lo que le dice a Clarín Junot Díaz, el dominicano que ganó el año pasado el Premio Pulitzer (el premio literario más importante de los Estados Unidos) por su novela La maravillosa vida breve de Óscar Wao:

—Los amigos míos dicen que hablo un español muertísimo y que también hablo un inglés muertísimo. Entonces, me parece que yo no tengo una lengua donde me siento muy cómodo.

Justamente. Cuando el jurado eligió la novela de Díaz, elegía un texto escrito en el inglés de un inmigrante “latino”, un inglés mezclado, revuelto con alguna de tantas versiones del español. Y elegía también el imaginario, los mitos, los miedos que esos inmigrantes cargaron consigo a través del Caribe. Y los nuevos, los que aprendieron en el Norte.

Díaz, el novelista incómodo en todas sus lenguas, estará en mayo en Buenos Aires para participar en la Feria del Libro, auspiciado por la embajada de Estados Unidos y Revista Ñ. Además de hablar en público y presentarse con escritores, viene a visitar amigos (“Toditos abogados”) y no está en sus planes nada como ver fútbol (“Soy muy aburrido”) ni recorrer ningún lugar en particular (“Yo prefiero la gente a los edificios”).

Desde que le dieron el premio, su libro -es su primera novela, antes había escrito cuentos- entró en las listas de best sellers en los Estados Unidos y su nombre recorrió el continente. ¿Por qué? El dijo por ahí que su historia “sólo podía ocurrir en (norte)América”. La historia del ascenso social. La historia de cómo el chico que creció en un barrio con vista a un basural se volvió un escritor consagrado. “Me da risa -supo decir-, cada vez que estoy en las reuniones de docentes del MIT, la gente anda como ‘Tengo un Premio Nobel’, O ‘Tengo un Premio Pritzker’. Y yo: ‘Mis padres fueron ilegales’”.

En breve (aunque la brevedad impide hacer justicia al libro): la novela premiada cuenta la historia de Óscar De León, un dominicano negro, gordo, y, palabra clave, nerd. Es decir, algo bastante parecido a un “traga”, que además tiene poco éxito en las relaciones sociales. En definitiva: alguien que rompe con el deber ser del estereotipo caribeño: seductor, canchero, deportista. Óscar (le dirán Wao por la pronunicación “latina” de “Wilde”) no es nada de eso. Y no, no le va bien.

Desde Estados Unidos, en el teléfono, Díaz empieza cauteloso, serio. Pero se irá soltando.

—¿Qué tiene que ver su vida con la de Óscar Wao?

—Uf, no mucho.

—Yo pensaba que un poco sí; usted fue a buenas universidades, se escapaba del barrio a la biblioteca…

—Imagínate, no conozco un escritor que no sea nerd. Yo soy nerd-nerd-nerd. Pero no tan nerd como Óscar. Hay niveles: si Óscar es un 8, yo soy un 3.

—Casi normal…

—La mayoría de mis amigos es un 1. No les encanta leer, no les gusta la literatura, no quieren saber de cómics. Dije que soy un 3, vamos a decir un 5, eso es más justo.

—¿Cuáles son sus características como nerd?

—Me encanta leer. Esa es la enfermedad que se me pegó. Mira, si alguien tiene un librero en su casa y, digamos, una botella de ron abierta, yo primero me acerco al librero.

—¿Cómo le dio esa enfermedad?

—Cuando emigré a Estados Unidos, yo tenía seis años. Creo que fue una reacción, una manera de sobrevivir, tú sabes, esa vaina tan difícil de la emigración, a veces un muchacho busca la forma de sentirse capaz, busca una forma de sobrevivir. La lectura me ayudó. Mira, yo vengo de una familia muy militar. A mis hermanos, a mi papá, la única vaina que les interesaba era el boxeo. Para mí, un muchacho sensible, festivo, eso era demasiado salvaje.

—¿Fue difícil en esa familia convertirse en escritor?

—Imagínate, coño. Me tenía que esconder de mi propia familia. Tenía que esconder los libros para que no se burlaran.

—Usted ganó este premio con una novela medio en español. ¿Mejoró la situación de los latinos en Estados Unidos? ¿Las segundas generaciones ya no tienen que abandonar el español?

—El público norteamericano se está acostumbrando a ver un inglés bien mezclado con español. Para un latino, eso significa que se está mejorando el ambiente, porque en los Estados Unidos hay un prejuicio contra el español bastante grande.

—¿Un prejuicio de clase?

—Claro que hay un prejuicio de clase, pero también hay un prejuicio contra el idioma. Yo veo amigos míos, que son riquísimos, blanquitos, que vienen de buenísima familia, y cuando llegan a los Estados Unidos, no hablan ni papa de español.

—Eso los vuelve negros…

—Se vuelven negros, o peor, se vuelven malditos ilegales. Entonces, hay ese prejuicio en la cultura en general. Aunque yo he visto muchos cambios, los Estados Unidos siguen siendo un país, una cultura muy, muy antilatina.

—Ni inglés ni español. ¿Quién entiende su libro completamente?

—Cuando una novela tiene personajes que le llegan a la gente, yo creo que los lectores aguantan mucha mierda. Aunque encuentren palabras que no entienden. Yo creo que gané este maldito público por mis personajes. Y creo que a mucha gente que ha leído esta novela no le importa ni culo la cultura latina, ni quieren saber nada con el español, pero aguantaron por los personajes.

—Y lo que no entendieron, lo imaginaron.

—Tú sabes cómo es eso de leer, el lector está acostumbrado a no conocer muchas palabras. Y hay gente a la que le encanta ver el español mezclado con el inglés.

—Obama también es un hombre “mezcla”. ¿Es un clima de época? ¿Se acabaron los “puros”?

—Yo no creo ser tan optimista. Una cultura como la de Estados Unidos tiene varias ramas. Una es ese punto de vista, que somos todos mezcladitos, que no hay nada que valga la pena que no venga de otras cosas, de diferentes raíces. Pero también hay zonas de la cultura norteamericana que sueñan con una cultura pura.

—Anglosajona.

—Pureza, blanquedad. Dos impulsos existen en Estados Unidos. Nosotros somos la generación que metió a Obama en la Casa Blanca. Pero también la que quiere botar a los inmigrantes. Y ahora… cuando la economía se pone malísima la gente inmediatamente le cae encima a los inmigrantes.

—¿Hay un deseo de quedarse afuera de esa sociedad anglosajona cuando se habla spanglish?

—¡Yo no hablo spanglish, mi amor! Yo soy el único de la familia que habla un español tan muerto, y eso porque me crié con morenos, con african-americans. Mis hermanas, sus hijos, toditos hablan un español perfecto. Y sus hijos no son nada de spanglishparlantes.

—Pero usted escribe en spanglish.

—Bueno, no, porque mira, no es spanglish. Pero hay muchísimos escritores que mezclan inglés y español y nadie les pega spanglish. Yo creo que lo que sucede en esta novela es code-switching (NdeR: la mezcla de varios idiomas en una frase) entre español e inglés. La nueva generación es completamente bilingüe, habla bien los dos idiomas.

—Es decir que usted no le tiene ninguna fe al spanglish como idioma.

—¡Pero por favor! ¡Nunca! No veo al spanglish como un idioma, lo veo como una etapa.

—¿Cómo se siente cuando va a Santo Domingo?

—Es muy complejo. Me siento un inmigrante. Pero de otro tipo que en Estados Unidos.

—¿En Estados Unidos todavía se siente un inmigrante?

—¡Claro! ¿Tú crees que cuando uno domina el idioma y conoce más o menos la cultura eso cambia? Ser inmigrante es como ser alcohólico. Eso nunca se quita. Mis hijos, si nacen acá, no van a ser inmigrantes. Pero yo, siempre. Siempre, siempre, siempre.

Benicio Del Toro leads the charge for “Che”

latimes.com

Benicio Del Toro leads the charge for ‘Che’

Benicio Del Toro has made a career of playing men on society’s outskirts. Now as the revolutionary ‘Che,’ he shows his power.
By Mark Olsen
December 11, 2008

In films as varied as “The Usual Suspects,” “Basquiat,” “Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas,” “Traffic” and “Things We Lost in The Fire,” Benicio Del Toro seems drawn to play the eccentric outsider.

Now in director Steven Soderbergh’s “Che” — which opens for a one-week run on Friday in Los Angeles and New York — Del Toro plays 1950s and ’60s revolutionary leader Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Following Guevara from Mexico to Cuba to New York to Bolivia, the film — which will screen as a single 4-hour unit during its short run, and be broken into two separate films for the wider release in January — has a broad sweep, but also an eye for the specific, becoming perhaps the ultimate expression of Del Toro’s physical, enigmatic screen presence.

The project began with the 41-year-old Del Toro, who took an interest in Guevara’s book “The Bolivian Diary” and pursued the idea with producer Laura Bickford. This was just before his turn in the 2000 film “Traffic” (Bickford produced and Soderbergh directed), which earned Del Toro an Academy Award for supporting actor.

Del Toro’s work in “Che” appears to be a rare and a truly fortuitous match of actor and role.

“It certainly seemed that way to me immediately,” said Soderbergh of the way in which Del Toro suited the part. “I had the same sensation I had when I was working with Julia Roberts on ‘Erin Brockovich,’ the right person in the right role at the right time.”

Despite the film’s controversial reception following its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival — Variety called it “defiantly nondramatic” and “a commercial impossibility” — Del Toro, who also has a producing credit on the film, was awarded the best actor prize. Sean Penn, who led the festival jury, later called Del Toro’s work “one of the first tour de force performances in film history that doesn’t rely on the close-up.”

Keeping it true

Del Toro’s tall, broad frame is frequently shot by Soderbergh in a full-body shot, so that the actor works with his shoulders and hips as much as his eyes, while allowing other actors equal visual weight within the frame.

“When Che wrote he was very honest; that’s one of the first things that really moved me,” said Del Toro. “My first attraction toward Che was a book of letters he wrote to his family. There was an honesty in that, where he could be very self-critical, but also with a witty nod.

“The approach of the movie is to be true, factually true from what we gathered, but also true to him.”

Del Toro believes the film will have a life beyond whatever it may (or may not) make at the box office during its initial theatrical releases. It recently played to cheers in Havana and protests in Miami.

“One day, the movie will pop up and they’ll shake hands with it,” he says. “I remember the first time I heard [ Miles Davis' landmark 1970 album] ‘Bitches Brew,’ I was like, ‘I can’t listen to that’. And then one time I was driving and one of the songs came on and everything changed. This movie, at some point it will change someone’s mind, what they thought it was.”

Transforming man

Before shooting the final sections of the film that portray Guevara’s time in Bolivia at the end of his life, Del Toro dropped some 35 pounds. For Guevara’s arrival in Bolivia in disguise, he shaved the top of his head rather than wear a bald cap. For his role in “Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas” as the fictional sidekick Dr. Gonzo (based on writer Hunter S. Thompson’s friend and attorney Oscar Zeta Acosta), Del Toro put on 40 pounds.

It seems only fitting that following the release of “Che” he will next be seen in a new version of ” The Wolf Man,” perhaps the ultimate story of personal transformation.

“I wish I could stay home,” he said of what draws him again and again to roles that require severe physical transformation and deep emotional commitment.

“I wish I could be asleep right now. But why do I do it? That’s the way the cookie crumbles for me, I’m that kind of actor. Do I invite it? Maybe. At the same time it invites me.

“It’s just who I am.”

Ojalá

Ojalá

Por Eduardo Galeano

¿Obama probará, desde el gobierno, que sus amenazas guerreras contra Irán y Pakistán fueron no más que palabras, proclamadas para seducir oídos difíciles durante la campaña electoral?

Ojalá. Y ojalá no caiga ni por un momento en la tentación de repetir las hazañas de George W. Bush. Al fin y al cabo, Obama tuvo la dignidad de votar contra la guerra de Irak, mientras el Partido Demócrata y el Partido Republicano ovacionaban el anuncio de esa carnicería.

Durante su campaña, la palabra leadership fue la más repetida en los discursos de Obama. Durante su gobierno, ¿continuará creyendo que su país ha sido elegido para salvar el mundo, tóxica idea que comparte con casi todos sus colegas? ¿Seguirá insistiendo en el liderazgo mundial de los Estados Unidos y su mesiánica misión de mando?

Ojalá esta crisis actual, que está sacudiendo los cimientos imperiales, sirva al menos para dar un baño de realismo y de humildad a este gobierno que comienza.

¿Obama aceptará que el racismo sea normal cuando se ejerce contra los países que su país invade? ¿No es racismo contar uno por uno los muertos invasores en Irak y olímpicamente ignorar los muchísimos muertos en la población invadida? ¿No es racista este mundo donde hay ciudadanos de primera, segunda y tercera categoría, y muertos de primera, segunda y tercera?

La victoria de Obama fue universalmente celebrada como una batalla ganada contra el racismo. Ojalá él asuma, desde sus actos de gobierno, esa hermosa responsabilidad.

¿El gobierno de Obama confirmará, una vez más, que el Partido Demócrata y el Partido Republicano son dos nombres de un mismo partido?

Ojalá la voluntad de cambio, que estas elecciones han consagrado, sea más que una promesa y más que una esperanza. Ojalá el nuevo gobierno tenga el coraje de romper con esa tradición del partido único, disfrazado de dos que a la hora de la verdad hacen más o menos lo mismo aunque simulen que se pelean.

¿Obama cumplirá su promesa de cerrar la siniestra cárcel de Guantánamo?

Ojalá, y ojalá acabe con el siniestro bloqueo de Cuba.

¿Obama seguirá creyendo que está muy bien que un muro evite que los mexicanos atraviesen la frontera, mientras el dinero pasa sin que nadie le pida pasaporte?

Durante la campaña electoral, Obama nunca enfrentó con franqueza el tema de la inmigración. Ojalá a partir de ahora, cuando ya no corre el peligro de espantar votos, pueda y quiera acabar con ese muro, mucho más largo y bochornoso que el Muro de Berlín, y con todos los muros que violan el derecho a la libre circulación de las personas.

¿Obama, que con tanto entusiasmo apoyó el reciente regalito de setecientos cincuenta mil millones de dólares a los banqueros, gobernará, como es costumbre, para socializar las pérdidas y para privatizar las ganancias?

Me temo que sí, pero ojalá que no.

¿Obama firmará y cumplirá el compromiso de Kyoto, o seguirá otorgando el privilegio de la impunidad a la nación más envenenadora del planeta? ¿Gobernará para los autos o para la gente? ¿Podrá cambiar el rumbo asesino de un modo de vida de pocos que se rifan el destino de todos?

Me temo que no, pero ojalá que sí.

¿Obama, primer presidente negro de la historia de los Estados Unidos, llevará a la práctica el sueño de Martin Luther King o la pesadilla de Condoleezza Rice?

Esta Casa Blanca, que ahora es su casa, fue construida por esclavos negros.

Ojalá no lo olvide, nunca.

Soderbergh’s epic “Che” lands US distributor

nydailynews.com

Soderbergh’s epic ‘Che’ lands US distributor

TORONTO — Steven Soderbergh’s Che Guevara film biography “Che” has found a U.S. distributor that will release it in theaters this December to qualify for the Academy Awards.

IFC Films announced Wednesday it acquired domestic rights to the two-part, 4½-hour saga, which stars Puerto Rican actor Benicio Del Toro as the Argentine doctor who became one of the heroes of Fidel Castro’s Cuban revolution.

The film will play a one-week qualifying run in Los Angeles and New York in December for Oscar consideration.

It will reopen in theaters in January and be available to cable and satellite subscribers through IFC’s movies-on-demand service.

“Che” earned Del Toro the best-actor prize in May at the Cannes Film Festival, where the film premiered.

The acquisition was announced at the Toronto International Film Festival, where “Che” also screened.

“‘Che’ is nothing less than the film event of the year,” said Jonathan Sehring, IFC Films president.

“By giving us the rise and fall of one of the great icons of history, Steven Soderbergh and Benicio Del Toro, who gives an incredible soulful performance, have humanized him and given audiences around the world something that will be discussed for years to come.”

Who is Albizu Campos?

Siembra – 30th Anniversary

It’s been 30 years already. Time really does go fast.

My earliest memories of the album was as a youngster living in Puerto Rico around the time of the album’s release. I can still vividly remember playing outside my house with other kids from the neighborhood and hearing older people walking around singing out loud the lyrics to “Plastico” and “Pedro Navaja”, especially the line “la vida te da sorpresas, sorpresas te da la vida, ay dios”

Siembra was, is, and always will be an extraordinary recording. Its reputation well earned over the years due in large part to the brilliant musicianship and songwriting that created the album. But to me its greatest significance and what made it so ground breaking was Rubén Blades achievement in bringing deep social and political commentary into a musical genre not traditionally known for having songs of such a serious nature.

Rubén changed and revolutionized Latin music, with Siembra, breaking many barriers and establishing a new level of artistry. Ruben took the music to a higher level by introducing not only a new approach to songwriting but by also expanding the boundaries in which all other Latin artists could create and achieve.

The subject matter that the songs took on were simply unprecedented to the wide Latin audience of Afro-Cuban music that listened in for the first time and afterwards. The album opener, “Plastico” starts off warning about the hazards and inherent absurdities of materialism and racism, ending with a call for Latino consciousness and Pan-Latin American unity as the way forward.

This was not your parents El Gran Combo or Celia Cruz album.

The centerpiece and most famous song on Siembra is “Pedro Navaja” which tells the tale of a barrio hustler whose lifestyle finally catches up with him one day as he inevitably experiences a very tragic and lonely end. Like Ruben writes in the song, 8 million stories the city of New York has. Many of those just like Pedro Navaja.

In songs like “Maria Lionza” which is set in Venezuela but the expressions of racial unity and the longing for Liberty are meant for all the oppressed masses in Latin America not just in Caracas.

“Ojos” is a song about hope, about the poor, about young people, who despite the hopelessness of their social conditions are still able to rise above it. The words of the songs, once again, speak to all of Latin America.

“Siembra” closes the album out and is an earth shaker of a song. The rhythms so blazing hot that it is impossible to listen to this song sitting down and without boppin’ your head and moving your arms and shoulders all around.

The song goes back to the themes of not surrendering your soul to materialism, Latin American unity, elevating one’s consciousness to make a better world, fighting together against racism, never losing faith and in between all of this there’s even a shout out to Puerto Rican revolutionary Ramón E. Betances.

A truly monster of a song and a perfect ending to a tour de force of an album.

Finally, I would be very remiss to not mention the enormous contributions that Willie Colon made with his fiery trombone playing and the masterful arrangements of all the songs.

Willie and the rest of the musicians push the songs along, making them swing, like crazy.

Siembra would not be what it is without the musical genius of Willie Colon.

30 years later, the music is as alive as ever. And the political context of the songs as relevant as ever just by looking at the political situation across Latin America today.

In my opinion, Siembra is still to this day the greatest artistic achievement ever made in Latin music history.

80 Años

Retired Chilean officer charged in Victor Jara’s death

Retired Chilean officer charged in singer Victor Jara’s death

The Associated Press

Friday, May 16th 2008, 4:00 AM

SANTIAGO, Chile — A retired army colonel has been charged in the killing of renowned Chilean folk singer Victor Jara following the 1973 coup led by Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

Judge Juan Fuentes said Thursday he ended his investigation into the case and charged only retired Col. Mario Manriquez in the case, saying he was “responsible” for the death.

Jara was among the best-known members of Latin America’s “New Song” folk movement of the 1960s and 1970s and was also a Communist Party political activist who backed Chile’s elected socialist president, Salvador Allende.

Jara was arrested after the Sept. 11, 1973, military coup that overthrew Allende and he was taken to a soccer stadium used as a detention camp.

Court papers indicate Jara was tortured – his hands smashed with rifle butts – and then was shot to death.

The death turned him into an international symbol of resistance to the Pinochet government.

Fuentes had taken over the investagion in 2005 from another judge, who initially announced plans to charge Manriquez.

A lawyer for the Jara family, Nelson Caucoto, said he will appeal the decision to close the probe with no other people charged.

Evo Morales: 10 Commandments to save the planet, life and humanity

The 10 commandments President Evo Morales suggested to save the planet, life and humanity are:

1-Acabar con el sistema capitalista
1-End the capitalist system

2-Renunciar a las guerras
2-Renouncing wars

3-Un mundo sin imperialismo ni colonialismo
3-A world without imperialism or colonialism

4-Derecho al agua
4-Right to water

5-Desarrollo de energi­as limpias
5-Development of clean energies

6-Respeto a la madre tierra
6-Respect for Mother Earth

7-Servicios basicos como derechos humanos
7-Basic services such as human rights

8-Combatir las desigualdades
8-Fighting inequalities

9-Promover la diversidad de culturas y economias
9-Promoting diversity of cultures and economies

10-Vivir bien, no vivir mejor a costa del otro
10-Living well, not living better at the expense of others

The U.S. Media and Government Launch an All-Out Campaign Against the Venezuelan Revolution

http://hovreferendum.wordpress.com/

The U.S. Media and Government Launch an All-Out Campaign Against the Venezuelan Revolution

As the forces of revolution and counter-revolution collide once again in the country of Bolivar, the U.S. government and its servants in the mainstream media have launched yet another a blitzkrieg propaganda offensive against the Venezuelan people’s right to determine their own destiny.

This is no conspiracy. A detailed CIA plot called “Operation Pincers”, which aims to destabilize the country in the days around the vote on the proposed changes to the Constitution, has been exposed. A major component of this plan is to create an atmosphere of distrust, uncertainty, and confusion, with the Venezuelan and international media playing their usual pernicious role. The goal is to prepare public sentiment for possible U.S. intervention to “restore order”. It’s an old but all too effective tactic.

The media mouthpieces of the U.S. ruling class are foaming at the mouth in an all out effort to throw mud on the Venezuelan revolution. With misleading headlines implying that all that is at stake is the elimination of presidential term limits – never mind that the president would still need to be re-elected for each of those terms – they seek to disorient even those who have until now sympathized with the revolution and opposed U.S. intervention. The real stakes are far higher. The Venezuelan masses understand the vote as a referendum on their current and future quality of life, while the oligarchy and their imperialist masters understand it as a threat to their centuries of privilege and domination of the majority.

For example, the New York Times has played up Thursday’s opposition rally, while minimizing yesterday’s pro-Chavez rally, which dwarfed the former, and was perhaps as much as five times larger. They have also focused on corruption and scarcity of basic goods in Venezuela, blaming these things on Chavez. But the fact is, this is largely the product of counter-revolutionary sabotage, and many of the proposed changes to the Constitution are intended to address this. However, it should come as no surprise that the NYT takes this superficial approach. Let us not forget that the NYT was an early and avid supporter of the April 2002 coup against Chavez. On April 13, 2002 they “reported” the following:

“With yesterday’s resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.”

As for the circumstances surrounding the coup, this is how they described it:

“… Armed Chávez supporters fired on peaceful strikers, killing at least 14 and injuring hundreds. Mr. Chávez’s response was characteristic. He forced five private television stations off the air for showing pictures of the massacre. Early yesterday he was compelled to resign by military commanders unwilling to order their troops to fire on fellow Venezuelans to keep him in power. He is being held at a military base and may face charges in Thursday’s killings.”

A lie in every line!

1. The snipers were anti-Chavez provocateurs;

2. In what way was the response “characteristic”? No media was shut down – except for he pro-Chavez Channel 8 and Catia-TV – both shut down by the coup-mongers, not the government;

3. Chavez did not resign, but was kidnapped by the pro-coup generals that had threatened to bomb the Presidential Palace and all those inside it if he did step down;

4. Chavez was not even going to get a chance to stand “trial” for “crimes” he did not commit; at one point he was about to be executed, but the soldiers guarding him refused to do it; he was then about to be remanded to U.S. custody and flown out of the country, when pro-Chavez special forces turned up to rescue him and bring him back to the capital. This is the actual course of events, as documented in the film “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”.

Fortunately for the people of Venezuela and the world, the masses of Caracas and across the country refused to accept the New York Times‘ version, and came onto the streets by the millions to overthrow the coup-mongers and restore Chavez to power.

As for the Washington Post, it has opened its opinion pages to none other than Donald Rumsfeld, the disgraced former Secretary of Defense and “architect” of the Iraq quagmire. In an op-ed titled “The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez”, Rumsfeld churns out his venom, couched in high-sounding diplomatic Newspeak [and by the way, his piece is dated Sunday, December 2nd, the day of the referendum – today is Saturday, December 1st!]

In line after line of distortions and outright lies, Rumsfeld laments that “not enough” is being done to “prevent Venezuela’s once vibrant democracy from receding into dictatorship” [!]. Of course, the “vibrant democracy” he is referring to is the “good old days” of violent repression of social movements, capitalist cronyism, and billions in easy profits for U.S. oil companies and their Venezuelan lackeys while 80 percent of the population languished in squalor and misery. And the “dictatorship” he refers to is the political awakening and participation in the political process of millions of Venezuelan workers, peasants, youth, and urban poor. In Rumsfeld’s view, the “global order is threatened … by violent extremists, rogue regimes, failing states and aspiring despots such as Chávez.” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! He even suggests using NATO as a force to “contain” undesirable elements around the world – i.e., anyone who does not follow the dictates of U.S. imperialism.

As for the U.S. government itself, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino had this to say at a press conference held yesterday (Friday, November 30, 2007): “We are concerned that people would not be able to have the free and fair elections that they deserve. I think there is good reason for them to be unhappy.” He then added, “[The decision] is up to the Venezuelans to make and we’ll see what they decide on Sunday.” This is quite ironic considering that at least $8 million in U.S. taxpayer money has been spent on anti-Chavez propaganda in the run up to the referendum, as detailed in the leaked memo to CIA headquarters! Not to mention the millions of dollars spent supporting anti-Chavez organizations in Venezuela and literally buying off many of his former supporters.

The bottom line is, the example of Venezuela’s revolution can no longer be tolerated by those who believe it is their divine right to exploit the vast majority of humanity. U.S. imperialism and its agents will never rest until the Venezuelan revolution is snuffed out. They will use every trick in the book – and then some – to ensure the example does not spread. After all, what would happen if the workers, youth, and poor of other countries – for example the United States – also got the crazy idea that society’s wealth should be used to provide universal health care, education, quality jobs, a reduced workweek, a full pension, to rebuild infrastructure, etc.? That neighborhood assemblies and factory councils should be organized to democratically manage the economy and the needs of our communities? That perhaps the banks should be used to develop the economy and improve everyone’s quality of life, instead of providing mega profits for the few? That perhaps we, the vast majority, don’t need a handful of parasites on our backs to effectively and democratically run society in the interests of all? This is the real reason for the hatred being spewed by the representatives of the ruling class against the Venezuelan revolution.

Tomorrow’s referendum will be another historic milestone in the Venezuelan revolutionary process. Workers and youth in the U.S. and worldwide must be on the alert in order to do their part to prevent U.S. intervention from derailing this process, which is a beacon of hope for the future of humanity. Let the Venezuelan People Decide! Hands Off Venezuela!

John Peterson
U.S. HOV National Secretary