Just saw an interview of England’s Prime Minister Blair regarding the immigration issue. The way in which the journalist was questioning him, and his policies, was very tough indeed, and I wondered «why is it that no journalist can question the policies of Hugo Chavez in a similar tete-a-tete?» For one of the first arguments that international supporters of Chavez (henceforth PSF; Pendejos Sin Fronteras) is that the virulent anti-Chavez media is responsible for the present chaos the country is in. I have often thought that it would be a truly remarkable experience, for me at least, to conduct an unscripted interview with Chavez; I would ask him whether or not were true those rumors that he used to beat the crap out of former first lady Marysabel; also about his alleged homosexual relationship with Fidel Castro -so that we know his stance with respect to women and gays in general- but I guess we will never have the chance to see that happen…
The PSF squad has got notorious ‘intellectuals’, mind you those eminent creatures with fancy PhDs from posh Universities that make a living out of opining about other people’s problems. Most of them are citizens of ‘advanced societies’. Alas the fact that Chavez prosecutes journalists bothers none of them. Seeing Michael Moore’s personal attack on Bush (Farenheit 9/11) gives a good perspective of the liberties of American citizens to criticize their leaders. Has anyone seen of late a similar ‘documentary’ on Hugo Chavez? An insight view of Fidel Castro’s ways perhaps? And then the PSF have the gall to even suggest that Bush is worse than his oppressive counterparts from down the river. I know how Castro deals with such criticism and we are just learning about his pupil’s antics. Thus can any rational mind, PSF don’t qualify, affirm that there is freedom of expression in Venezuela in the way we understand it here in first world nations?