Mr. Kerry, Who'll Be Wearing Your Suit?

Mr. Kerry, despite your busy schedule, which has taken you to Israel to go through the motions of creating the illusion that the United States is interested in finding a solution that will please both the Palestinians and the Israelis. Although being such a powerful broker which can easily set terms by which Israel would likely have to accept, leading to a true negotiation and also having the ability to make demands of the aggressive  nation to stop with the stealing of land which has made a two state solution less probable.

Also, you've been busy explaining to your former colleagues in the Senate about our "backyard" which is not only offensive and arrogant, but an imaginary scenario believed by some sold out politicians working on a hill named "Capital" in Washington DC.

In the suit that you dress yourself up in every morning, is there anything left of that John Kerry who long ago spoke so eloquently of the abuses committed by our government against the Vietnamese people?  Kind of like the twisted buffoons who you campaigned against for the presidency in 2004, can I ask you if you are a flip flopper?  Did you stand against the abuses of our government before you helped perpetuate them?

Soon you'll send a recommendation to President Obama whether or not to include Cuba on your department's list of nations that support terror.  In case you've been to steeped in politics to be aware of the first line about the subject on the State Department's website, I'll repeat them for you here: " In order to designate a country as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Secretary of State must determine that the government of such country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism."


 Let's review last years report.  As you'll notice, it quite frankly defies logic as to why Cuba remains on such a short list.

"Cuba was designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1982. Current and former members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) continue to reside in Cuba. Three suspected ETA members were arrested in Venezuela and deported back to Cuba in September 2011 after sailing from Cuba. One of them, Jose Ignacio Echarte, is a fugitive from Spanish law and was also believed to have ties to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Reports suggested that the Cuban government was trying to distance itself from ETA members living on the island by employing tactics such as not providing services including travel documents to some of them. Press reporting indicated that the Cuban government provided medical care and political assistance to the FARC. There was no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training for either ETA or the FARC.

The Cuban government continued to permit fugitives wanted in the United States to reside in Cuba and also provided support such as housing, food ration books, and medical care for these individuals.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has identified Cuba as having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies.  Despite sustained and consistent overtures, Cuba has refused to substantively engage directly with the FATF.  It has not committed to FATF standards and it is not a member of a FATF-style regional body, although in 2011 it did attend a Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering in South America meeting as a guest and prepared an informal document describing its anti-money laundering/counterterrorist financing system."

For a nation of such prominence like the United States, after a report like this, it should be embarrassing to have continued making the claim that Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism.

But the past is the past and as much as people may wish it were different, all we can do is deal with the present so that the future can be better.  An intelligent decision from you on this issue is what many people hope for.

Having your own department's report seeming to admit that Cuba has distanced itself from the handful of members of ETA should be enough to conclude that the requisite that a country can be shown to repeatedly provide support for ETA's acts of international terrorism.  Forget the fact that the report never claimed that Cuba was supporting terrorism by ETA anyhow.

The connections between Cuba and the FARC are a bit more interesting this year to say the least.  It turns out that not only isn't Cuba sponsoring FARC terror, Cuba is actually sponsoring peace talks between that group and the government of Colombia!  Isn't that a gem?!  (If you do decide to keep Cuba on the list, I'm certain that the report will be a bit shorter this time!)  Obama himself said that he supports the peace talks, although I'm certain that the whereabouts of the talks has caused him to wince.  The Colombian president has also stated his appreciation for Cuba's help in making the talks possible.  How do you feel, Mr. Kerry?

As for the FATF and it's claim of "strategic deficiencies" on the part of Cuba, things are also quite different than a year ago.  Although it was brushed off earlier this year by the State Department, the FATF stated publicly last October that since June 2011 "Cuba has significantly enhanced its engagement and co-operation with the FATF and made a request to join GAFISUD. However, the FATF urges Cuba to continue its engagement with the FATF and to work with the FATF to develop and agree on an action plan in order to address its AML/CFT deficiencies."  There words, not mine.  Straight from the group your department decided to rely heavily on in it's determination last year to keep Cuba on that list.

I've watched our government's impotence when it comes to standing up to powerful lobbies in Washington and I'm aware of how disproportionately strong the anti-Cuba lobby is so I really have no idea which John Kerry will be showing up to work on the day that your recommendation is made.  For the sake of honesty, credibility, and justice, I do hope that John Kerry who stood for those things will be the one wearing your suit.

The Representatives

Thr Senate has opposed logic. The Senate has opposed the majority os the people.  The Senate represents someone, but not us. 

Around 90% of the people support more background checks for gun purchases, but despite this the Senate has decided not to support them.  The Senate has represented the lobbyists.

For how long will this charade of democracy be accepted?  It's gone on far to long.  Are democratic institutions enough?  Or should we demand more?

I'm tired of the excuses.  Commentators speak about protecting the minority.  When it's convenient, some people say that we don't have a democracy, but a representative republic.  When it's time to change the filibuster, they don't.  Obviously the "representatives" are representing someone. 

It's not only the gun control issue.  We have a Democrat president offering to cut social security.  He has the nerve to ask "Who are we here to represent?" 

Mr. President, we know who you are there to represent.  Haven't you bargained a tax hike for on many middle class people?  Aren't you offering to cut social security?  Aren't you proposing a cut to heating oil subsidies for the poorest among us?  Have you proposed anything to fix our tax system which allows some of the largest corporations to not pay one cent of taxes?  Come on Mr. President, who are you guys there to represent?  I think you know the answer to that.

Dot 1, Dot 2...Connected

Two big stories occupying a lot of space in the press.  Let's call them "dots" and connect them because our press seems unable to do it.

Dot #1:  Gun control debate.

Dot #2:  Serious tensions with North Korea.

(As we run through this dot connecting exercise, we'll notice the low quality of our policy makers in Washington, and the low quality intellect of some press agencies.)

Dot #1 contains the debate over what the Second Amendment actually means and how to try and reduce the amount of gun crimes that are committed in the country.  During the back and forth, our vice-president, Joe Biden trying to show the lack of necessity of using assault weapons for personal defense, told a story.  "[I said to Jill] if there's ever a problem here, just walk out on the balcony, here, walk out, put that double barrel shotgun and just fire two blasts outside the house.  You don't need an [assault rifle]."

Thanks for the advice Joe.

Dot #2 is the situation in which the United States and South Korea, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to play war games off the coast of North Korea.  These two countries are technically at war having failed to sign a peace treaty since 1953.  (Talk about lack of initiative!)  Expectedly, North Korea has decided to get itself on war footing since a mock war will be going on off it's coast by it's enemies.   Of course, the U.S. is offended by the "provocative" nature of North Korea's decision, and our press has hyped the story as if an insane North Korea is acting improperly.  Does anyone question that it may be irresponsible or provocative to carry out this show of force on the part of the U.S. and South Korea?

Now let's connect the two dots....

What if North Korea thinks like Vice-President Biden?  What if North Korea, from within it's house, notices a problem outside?  What if North Korea decided to cock it's shotgun as a warning?  They haven't fired two blasts like Biden advised his wife to in a similar event.  If Biden's wife actually fired the blasts she would actually be violating the laws according to the police in her neighborhood.

To me, it all seems like a lot of ignorant chest thumping.  Blasting off shots and playing war games.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Of course, Washington thinks of itself a a special goose so nobody is willing to connect those dots.  

On Opposing Logic

In the discourse involving gun control, something to me seems illogical.  People who oppose any more gun laws often make the claim that we should just enforce existing laws. Yeah, we should.

But what doesn't make sense to me at all is that given the fact that a person can avoid a background check by purchasing a fire arm at a gun show or from another individual, existing law doesn't seem to prevent someone who shouldn't be able to purchase a gun from doing so. Call it a loophole if you'd like, but it's a damn big one.

The opponents to new laws, or better laws, make the argument that a criminal will break the law anyway and buy one and law abiding citizens, well aren't breaking the law so we shouldn't burden them.

By making it law that every gun purchase must require a background check on the purchaser, at least every legitimate gun sale would prevent someone not eligible to buy one from doing so. It's pretty solid logic. The burden wouldn't be on the buyer, but the seller. And if someone is selling a lethal weapon, let them be a bit more burdened. It's not as if we would be preventing them from selling it.  They would just be prevented from selling it to someone who shouldn't be buying it.

No, this kind of law wouldn't prevent illegal gun sales, but it would ensure that all legal sales are legitimate.  Can we consider a sale legitimate now if a person unable to purchase a gun in a gun shop does buy one from a gun show? Come on, that's not logical nor intelligent.  Leaving this kind of "grey area" in the business of selling arms is just plain irresponsible.

If our politicians can't even take obvious steps to minimally address the situation then they really don't deserve to receive a salary paid by us.  They can go work for an industry that they do the bidding for and stay the hell away from public business.

On the Passing of Hugo Chavez

On this day, the world has lost one of the giant figures of our time.  Hugo Chavez is a man who wasn't supposed to be in the position he was in.  He wasn't supposed to become the president of Venezuela.  He was an outsider.  He didn't represent the political classes which have dominated politics on the behalf of the oligarchs, the big capitalists.  He didn't view people as they did.  He didn't ask to be entrusted with the presidency of his country so that he could continue down the path that too many have called "democracy".  No, he represented something else, something empowering, something much closer to what people would understand to be true democracy.

For Hugo Chavez, empowering his countrymen, the masses of ignored people, the players in a game run by elites both Venezuelan and foreign, was the beginning of a revolution.  A revolution which was fought in the political arena of the enemies' of true democracy.  Although that arena and its rules were stacked in favor of the elites, it had a fatal flaw.  That flaw was that the desires of the forgotten masses could not be contained forever and their awakening, the election of Chavez became a reality.

I remember watching the news the day of the coup against him.  The news was upsetting.  Flashes of historical leaders being forced from power against the will of the people came to mind and for a little while I thought that the "champions of democracy" had been successful once again at destroying it.  But they weren't.  The Venezuelan people were alert and came out in support of their president and against the corrupt plotters and within a short period of time their democracy was restored.  The people had won again.

Pay attention to the people who so easily label Chavez a "dictator".  Pay attention to who they are.  Take note of the fact that their use of the word "dictator" is as slanderous as their use of the word "democracy".  When these people who attempt to portray the way things are in a way that just doesn't match how they really are, they are either inventing a new language or just plain liars.  Our societies are filled with people like this.

We must understand that these people cannot be trusted.  Leaders of the most advanced nations are most often nothing more than hypocrites.  They are more than willing to deal with real dictators and not only deal with them, but enable them, support them.  The only requisite to be on the good side of the leaders and "champions of democracy" is that one's interests must be aligned with theirs.  One can squash protests, teargas the public, disappear individuals, or even inherit a kingdom and not even recognize even the slightest appearance of a democratic mechanism.  There exist too many excuses why this is the case for us to believe such incoherence.

What is even more inspiring than just the awakening of the Venezuelan people and the multiple elections won by Chavez is that they aren't alone in their awakening.  More "dictators" were elected by the people in country after country in Latin America.  More elites were rejected by the populations that they had suffocated.  Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Argentina, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, Peru, all in their own way found ways to use their deformed democratic institutions to do the unlikely.  They have all chosen paths much different, to varying degrees, than the one prescribed by international bankers and multinational corporations.  Many have earned the label "dictator" and given its new meaning are proud of the paths they've chosen.  Much of this may not have happened if it hadn't been for the revolutionary Hugo Chavez.

Revolting means causing revulsion, nauseating, disgust.  Revolting is how the actions of men like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Fidel Castro can be described if we take in to consideration the reactions of the spoiled elites who feel as if it is only their right, a right of that arrogant minority, to run the affairs of a nation or the world.  But revolution is itself a liberating feeling to those masses who are carrying out the process of taking a rotten system and replacing it with one based on principles of fairness and justice.

So let those undeserving leaders dripping in hypocrisy and arrogance feel revulsion.  Let the people yearning for justice feel liberated from the ignorance and arrogance.

There is no end of history.  There always is the desire to fight for and feel dignified.  Hugo Chavez passed away because his is human.  But what he embodied was the struggle of a people.  With his passing, it is no doubt a sad day.  But his passing doesn't mean that people will give up their struggle.  He represented not only his people, but all people who strive to create a better world.  He will be missed but what he left behind is a people much greater, much stronger, much more conscious, and much more determined than most elected leaders can claim.

Hugo Chavez, thank you for inspiring a continent and beyond.  Comandante Chavez can rest in peace knowing that millions of people are doing the work that he believed they are capable of.  Hugo Chavez is a true champion of democracy.  

Until When?

To the American people of all political stripes.

  When will we realize that we need to get our act together and  recognize what's going on?  Earlier today, I was reading something Albert Einstein wrote decades ago.  I'm sure we can agree that he was no fool.  What he wrote was the following:

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."

He wrote these words in 1949.  The situation was clear to the genius then and if it wasn't yet clear to most people then, it should be more than clear by now.

Under the guise of "freedom of speech", money has been allowed to enter our political system recently in the most obnoxious way thanks to a group of political appointees who are unchecked by the public and face no consequences of their decisions.  We are left to deal with the consequences of the decisions of the Supreme Court.  Only nature followed by more political appointments can change the make up of this body of "justices".  How discouraging it is to know that those people who make the appointments are only to become even more corrupted by the outrageous amounts of money that got them their jobs.  What a terrible situation we are facing thanks to being distracted and divided by such strange issues.  Until when will we allow this detestable group of liars and wolves in sheeps' clothing to make promises with phrases so carefully worded that they lack the meaning that we hope they contain?

We workers have had our taxes raised and that's after we bailed out a group of capitalists who are responsible for not only the current crisis that we are in, but the conditions leading up to the crisis which left us weaker and worse off with every adventure that they had "our" politicians allow them to embark upon. Adding insult to injury, these capitalist corporations have found ways to avoid paying taxes in many cases, and in some have even gotten tax refunds.  Of course they have found these "loopholes" since they are the ones who influenced the authors of the loopholes, "our" politicians.  The same groups have entered us in to trade deals which send our jobs away in search for cheap labor which in most cases is as unprotected as the laborers in our country a century ago!

We have been bombarded by and conditioned by "news" which mostly comes from giant corporations.  We have been convinced of the sanctity of private property and the wonders of the "free market".  So much so that we've almost forgotten that the "free market" is actually a market which is governed by a set of rules put in place by people we elect and that we do have the right to have people of our choosing decide the rules by which the market can function.  We have either forgotten or been unaware that the oil and natural resources that are extracted often times from public lands leased to the corporations......who get enormous wealth while paying almost nothing for exploiting our commons.  We have squandered our airwaves as we've leased them to media corporations who then sell our air time to advertisers like pharmaceutical companies who benefit from our tax dollars so that they can research drugs to then sell us....wait, they have money to advertise but need money for research?  See what kind of nonsense we accept?

We are not beyond repair, but we have yet to try anything more than placing our hopes in someone with a nice smile, words that sound too good to be true, and excuses for why they can't deliver.  As Einstein suggested, it is extremely difficult to make use of political rights, but if we don't face the fact that those people to who we have ceded political power are not and will not act in our interest, we will continue in our frustration.  We must look for alternatives other than the two parties who are taken for granted as our only viable options.  They have proven not to be viable options and not fit to represent us.  They have proven to be more than willing to represent those forces which are actually detrimental to our nation and society.  We must move beyond the Democrat or Republican debate.  If we don't, we have already seen what is in store for our future.  Degradation of our environment, insufficient wages, an ineffective healthcare system, an uneven under-performing education system, wars which cannot be rationalized, and a parasitic class which loves to complain about "parasites".

With such glaring contradictions between what we have been told to believe and what is actually occurring, there has never been a time so ripe for our discontent to be used in powerful ways to reject the current system and create an alternative together, for the benefit of the masses of people who have been abused and manipulated under the current social relations.

"Strategic Deficiencies"

"Strategic deficiencies" caught my eye while reading about the State Department's denial about being ready to finally remove Cuba from the list of terrorist countries that it creates itself to justify aggressive policies maintained against them.  How many people actually know what they are referring to?  Probably not many.  I'll clear it up.

It is a reference to the Financial Action Task Force report about "High Risk and non-cooperative jurisdictions".  In a public statement in October 2012, this organization said about Cuba the following:

" In June 2011, the FATF identified Cuba as having strategic AML/CFT deficiencies and it had not engaged with the FATF. Since then, Cuba has significantly enhanced its engagement and co-operation with the FATF and made a request to join GAFISUD. However, the FATF urges Cuba to continue its engagement with the FATF and to work with the FATF to develop and agree on an action plan in order to address its AML/CFT deficiencies."

So there it is, according to the group itself.  :Cuba has significantly enhanced its engagement and co-operation with the FATF and made a request to join GAFISUD."  If we were to listen without knowing what the State Department is actually talking about, we might come away with the idea that Cuba is actively not doing anything to try and "address those deficiencies that pose a risk to the international financial system." (those are the FATF's reasons for working with nations).  Quite the opposite of what is suggested by our State Department!

The only deficiencies that I am aware of in this situation is the lack of good and meaningful reasons on the part of the U.S. government to have Cuba on such a list and I think they are aware of this.  The connections with the FARC have actually proved to be useful given that because of those links the Colombian government has been able to engage in a dialogue with the armed group, a dialogue with a goal of peace.

To me, deficiency in strategy better describes a problem facing Washington officials who would like to improve relations with Latin America yet find themselves being increasing viewed negatively by those nations for sticking with an unjustifiable policy towards Cuba.  As Washington tries to isolate Cuba, it finds itself becoming more isolated instead.  That is a strategic deficiency and it has nothing to do with the myth of Cuba being involved with terrorism.

I'm sure that the "high level diplomats" who made the suggestion that the U.S. has concluded to take Cuba off this list have come to the conclusion based on reality, not based on the obvious nonsense spewed by anti-Cuba "think tanks".

Note: FAFT (Financial Action Task Force)
         AML/CFT (Anti-Money Laundering/ Combating the Financing of Terrorism)
         GAFISUD (Grupo de Accion Financiera de Sudamerica) or (Financial Action Task Force on Money            
                         Laundering in South America)

(Thanks to Cuba Journal for asking me to be more clear about the acronyms I used.  I highly recommend reading http://cubajournal.blogspot.com/  for information about the injustices committed by the "regime" in Washington against the "regime" in Cuba and isn't as lazy and uninformative as the corporate press and highlights many of the accomplishments of the Cuban people. Why only use the term "regime" when talking about the government of Cuba except to belittle a sovereign nation which is recognized to be as legitimate as the government of the United States?)  

We Don't Take Our Democracy Lightly

We tend to believe that we live in a democracy.  But we live in a country that has a democratic action on the federal level once every 4 years.  Is there any wonder why we feel, and I don't care  where you are on the political spectrum, that the elected officials are not really acting in our best interests?  Who is it that our elected officials are listening to?  Not us. Not ordinary people.

The people who have the attention of the elected politicians are the very ones who seem to have the least frustration.  While we're clocking in at our jobs doing the exact same things we did yesterday, some people are busy at work writing or proposing legislation for our representatives to pass.

As far as I can tell, if what we've been doing is going to work everyday, we haven't been participating much in our democracy! 

Excuse me for my ignorance, I failed to remember that we do often choose between Coke or Pepsi and Burger King or McDonalds.  Like I said, we don't take our democracy lightly.

the WAy Kids arE Unbiased and Progressive

This morning, while taking my 8 year old son to baseball practice, I decided to use the time in the car to practice with him some simple math.  He got a little more than math practice out of it.

I gave him an example.  But first I asked him if he knew what he wage was.  He didn't, so I explained to him.

Here's have the example went:

Let's say that a man works in a baseball factory.  This man makes 2 baseballs in an hour.  The wage that he is paid is 2 dollars every hour.  And let's say that the owner of the factory needs to pay 1 dollar for the materials to make 2 baseballs.  How much does it cost the owner to have 2 baseballs made?

He thought about it and answered correctly.  "3 dollars because it's 2 dollars for the worker plus 1 more dollar for the materials."

Then I said, "let's say the boss sells each ball for 2 dollars.  How much does he make after paying for the materials and the worker?"  I reminded him that the 1 dollar of materials was for making 2 baseballs and the worker makes 2 balls in 1 hour.  He thought about it and said "50 cents if he sells 1 ball for 2 dollars."  That's right.

I gave him a few more mathematical possibilities and for the most part he got them right.  Then I asked him, "how many hours does a person need to work if he wants to buy 1 of the balls that he made it work?"  His answer was 1 hour.

I asked him what he thought about someone having to make 2 balls in order to earn enough money to buy 1 ball.  He realized the strange nature of the situation any told me, "he's getting ripped off!"

It's interesting how clear things are sometimes to an unconditioned mind of a child.

To My President

Mr. President,

I did not vote for you in 2012.  The change I knew your were capable of after voting for you in 2008, I quickly realized was just going to be someone else's to bring one day.  I'm certain that you are aware of what you have not done and could have so I don't feel the need to waste anyone's time here.  I also can assume, based on watching how you've governed, that you really don't care.  This should be especially true since your political competitions (elections) are something of the past.

I know that you are some kind of an expert on constitutional law and not a rocket scientist.  It's not a problem since what I'm going to write here is definitely not rocket science.  You are a politician so it should all make sense to you.  You've done a remarkable job at maintaining tremendous support despite the fact that you haven't done much to help the people who give you their support and likely have done more harm than good.

Mr. President, can I ask you something?  How did it feel when you showed up at the Summit of the Americas and found out that you no longer came to the table as a master, but as someone who endured almost unanimous condemnation for our nation's attitude and policies towards Cuba?  You know that there was a time that Uncle Sam could twist the arms of some nations' governments and have them go along with his ideas.  You know that Uncle Sam had installed dictators who did his bidding, destroying a continent's peoples desires for democracy and justice.  If you didn't know, you do know now that  those people are also aware of those things.  And those people have raised their heads and voices and have taken their destinies' in the own hands.  They are struggling, democratically, to recreate their societies that have been so deformed thanks to Uncle Sam's actions and they are succeeding.  Tell me, how does it feel when the desire for democracy starts to shake up a hemisphere that had for so long been dominated by people from the same institutions that you are a part of?  If you're at all an understanding man, you should feel a bit humbled but still excited about what possibilities the people of Latin America are experiencing. 

How, Mr. President will you tackle the future?  Will you fight a losing battle to try to impose your will, or the will of Uncle Sam?  Will you accept this new reality gracefully and try to fit in this new equation?  You still have a lot of potential to become a very positive influence in Washington, but you only have this one term left.  How much do you care about people?  How much do you care about Alan Gross?  Do you care for him in human way?  Or do you instead use Alan Gross as a number in some sort of political calculation?  Do you count on the fact that most Americans do not have the slightest idea who he is so that, politically, he becomes a convenient excuse not to pursue the inevitable path of restoring relations with Cuba?  As unknown as Alan Gross is to most Americans, so are the Cuban five.  Like I said earlier, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to solve this puzzle of how to resolve this sad situation.

Your own administration has stated that Alan Gross' imprisonment is a major obstacle to any progress on the issue of Cuba.  That's why I question how you view him.  A simple solution exists and only escapes those who either can't speak outside the typical rhetoric or those who tend to analyze situations to death.  Up until now, you've seemed to fall in the first category with some minor exceptions.  But not only does that leave you with bad or no options to resolve the situation involving Alan Gross but also leaves our nation further isolated in hemispheric affairs. 

Take the Cuban five for example.  Let's imagine for the sake of argument, that their sentences are fair.  Under normal circumstances do states prefer to maintain prisoners for decades instead of using them as possible chips to be traded for their own imprisoned assets?  There are countless examples of swaps between enemies throughout history.  Even if one were to view the crimes of the Cuban five as being much worse than the crimes committed by Mr. Gross, the possibility for a trade still exists as opposed to leaving Alan Gross in his predicament based on some imagined principle.  Even more perplexing is the case of one of the five's being forced to serve out his parole here when we can both pretty much expect that once it is completed he will not ask to continue living here nor would we allow him to for that matter.

The irrationality of the embargo that we insist on keeping in place is obvious to the world around us.  No one expects that changing that policy would be a sign of weakness, but instead an example of the United States finally not insisting on such an absurd and punitive policy based on a powerful nation's arrogance in believing that it should have a say in another less powerful yet sovereign nation's affairs.  It's very difficult for you or any other administration to sit at the table with any other Latin American countries' leaders with this hanging over our heads and pretend that we have respect for their sovereignty.  If you want to be able to accomplish anything tangible at future hemispheric conferences, as it was made clear to you at the last Summit of the Americas, you must begin to seriously begin to address the issue of Cuba intelligently and fairly.

Who knows what the history between the two countries would be today had President Kennedy been able to receive news from the man he secretly sent to discuss things with Castro.  Perhaps your job would be easier today and what I'm writing now would have never entered my mind.  But this isn't the case.  It's your time and your responsibility to find a way to resolve what is probably our nation's biggest stumbling block to normal equitable relations with all of our southern neighbors.  Show the world, show the American people that your abilities extend beyond the infantile politicking with the Republican machinery.  You can be sure that Cuba is a ripe fruit, not one for us to devour and enjoy its sweetness, but one which you can reach for and pull from the tree of seemingly unreachable political heights.

Thanks for your time,

Jimmy C

I was going to write about travel to Cuba but...

I haven't had any time whatsoever to write as of late so I wanted to take advantage of my day off to write about the interesting predicament that the U.S. finds itself in now that Cubans do not need "permission", or a lot of extra paperwork at least, to travel abroad.  But a couple of things took my attention away from that topic this morning.  One being the joke that Senator Flake made about allowing American spring breakers to go to Cuba along with Senator Menendez's expected response.  But more interestingly, when I tried to look for more silliness attributable to Senator Menendez, the first thing I found about him was a report about him being under investigation by the FBI. 

Why would this good senator be under investigation?  Could it be that the FBI is interested in corruption, something that so many of us feel is going on in Washington regularly but it never seems to interest investigators much?  Nope.  It involves Sen. Menendez possible involvement with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.  Now let's put this in to perspective.  This is a very serious charge.  I can appreciate that given the fact that Sen. Menendez will be assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it's nice to know that he has shown an interest in travel to foreign countries.  But how does a guy who travels abroad for sex with underage girls look if he would hold such a prestigious position in the government?  Hopefully his colleagues are whispering to him something about assuming a less prominent role at the very least! Forget about his obvious dishonesty.  His moral character seems to be an issue here.  we all know that politicians are often less that honest.

What dishonesty?  well let me point out the most recent example.  As he attempted some sort of rebuttal to Sen. Flake's suggestion to allow Americans to travel to Cuba, he decided to repeat the known lie about Alan Gross' actions in Cuba.  It has been exposed that he wasn't simply helping the Jewish community in Cuba get a little internet access, but actually carrying out a contract which is part of a government program to destabilize Cuba.  Sen. Menendez, having nothing much left of legitimate examples to defend his policy positions regarding Cuba, just has to resort to outright lies.

In my opinion, this lowlife should have his ego deflated.  If he is actually guilty of having sex with underage prostitutes in other countries, he should be dealt with according to the law.  He should until then hide his head in the sand and hope this is all just a nightmare.  But either way, he should be called out for being the liar he is. I do hope he is the next link of an ever shrinking chain of hard liners protecting the status quo of the embargo against Cuba.  The chain is weak and someone should break it already.

Another Year Wasted

As 2012 closes, we have seen another year go by and another 365 days wasted by Washington politicians as the official line about Cuba has remained the same... idiotic.

Cuba remains inexplicably on our list of terrorist nations.  We still fund programs aimed at subverting its government.  And the U.S. remains virtually isolated internationally in regards to the embargo, which has not only failed at its objective, but continues to put constraints on Cuba's economy and its people making everyday life more difficult than it need be.  And let's not forget that the deadly Wet-foot/Dry-foot policy remains in effect despite all of the talk of immigration that has gone on.

Let's hope that the new year brings new ideas and attitudes and we begin to see actual changes in not only rhetoric but policies.  As we all know, time has come for Washington to get over its Cuba complex and find the strength to do the right thing. END THE EMBARGO AND RESPECT CUBA.

Happy New Year to all.

Obama Inspired Me

  A lot of people were inspired by candidate and then President Obama.  I was one of them.  After watching him gain momentum in the primaries in 2008, thanks to his position on the war in Iraq, and then defeating Hillary Clinton and Senator McCain, I watched him squander the most political capital that a person could hope for.

   I watched again and again, issue after issue, the president not only cede negotiating positions to the Republican party,  but never even had starting points in negotiations that his supporters imagined he would.  The key word here is "imagined".

   I had never imagined that we were on the brink of a true universal health care system.  I just thought he might at least bring it up.  I never imagined that he would truly bring U.S.troops home from Iraq.  I just didn't think he would actually try to extend the deadline that Bush had set.  The one thing that I did expect him to do he did.  He did allow unlimited travel to Cuba by people with relatives there.  But unfortunately, he has maintained all of the programs that we spend millions of dollars on to undermine the Cuban government.  I think it would be easier than most people think to go a lot farther and establish relations with Cuba since the times of Kennedy.  There would be no personal political risk, which of course is the main calculation in the minds of politicians like him.

   But what we are witnessing this week should turn the stomachs of decent people.  The absolutely unbalanced military pounding being applied to the Palestinian people in Gaza.  Hamas apparently has a military wing because its chief was assassinated by an Israeli air strike earlier this week, but I've not seen any images of an actual Palestinian military.  Rockets and some machine guns can hardly be called a military in today's world and anyone who tries to claim that the fight is balanced is simply lying.

   Watching Obama's administration answer the questions of violence by Israel by stating that they stand by Israel's right to defend themselves, as if  the violent occupiers have been sucker punched and become victims by the people they seem to be determined to occupy.  It's disgusting and disgraceful.  It's also why Israel acts as disconnected to reality as the Obama administration when the United Nations votes to condemn the embargo of Cuba... another embarrassing stance that Obama decides to stick with.

   Obama inspired me and these are events that reinforce my certainty.  He inspired me to finally un-register from the Democrat party, which I had already believed for some time had not been a good fit for me.  He also inspired me to vote for the Green party candidate for president on November 6 of this year.

   He has done so much as president to have left me quite inspired.  Hopefully others will be inspired too.  For that I say to President Obama, "Great job."   

When Our Shit Stinks

(Forgive me in advance for the profanity)

   Our shit stinks.  The U.S. government, not the Constitution, but the people who have the responsibility of governing are embarrassingly hypocritical.  They all profess their love and belief in democracy.  They all invoke democracy and open government every chance they get.  They all use it as an issue to judge other countries.  And almost everyone is obviously full of shit.

   A great example of the utter disregard for the idea of democracy is what happened at the Democrat's convention.  When delegates were voting on and amendment for the party platform,  the event went past the boundaries of absurdity.  What the amendment itself contained isn't the issue here.  What is the issue was how the vote actually happened.  A voice vote of yeas and nays was held and a two thirds majority was needed for passage of the amendment.  When the vote was made, apparently the desired result wasn't clearly the winner.  So the vote was held again.  For a second time, their was no clear two thirds winner.  Incredibly, the vote was done for a third time.  Both the yeas and nays grew louder with each vote, but not even on the third vote was there a clear majority.  I suppose that the mayor of Los Angeles decided that continuing to vote would just increase the embarrassment of the situation, so he declared the yeas the winner, just as the teleprompter prompted him to, and the amendment was adopted.  What a slap in the face for democracy!  Their shit stinks.

   Why is it that we have another party which through state legislatures attempt to make it more difficult for people to vote?  How can these people keep a straight face when they talk of the importance and strength of democracy, yet actually pass laws which are based on a disdain for voter participation?  These "gentleman" are hypocrites.  They don't give a damn about democratic process.  They are interested in manipulating the election system in ways that help their own party.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Their shit stinks.

   Both parties file law suits in state courts against some candidates from other parties trying to prevent them from earning a spot on the ballots.  Whether or not the legal arguments have merritt, the two ruling parties have deep enough pockets to drag the court process on long enough to make it financially impossible to continue for the other candidates to continue.  The two parties do what they can to restrict the context of whatever democracy we might have.  Their shit stinks.

   In the election of 2000, Ralph Nader was called a spoiler as the Democrats tried to rationalize Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush.  Well, many people who preferred Nader's ideas, voted for Gore because the idea of voting for a better candidate from a third party seemed like an impossible choice since everyone knows that there are only two parties that can win a presidential election.  The way I see it, the spoiler for the American people was Al Gore and the Democrat party.  Had they stepped out of the way, maybe Ralph Nader could have become our president.  And why not?  Is the Green Party not allowed to beat the Republican Party?  While Al Gore was busy trying to appear like an "alpha-male" for the news media, the party itself was making sure that Ralph Nader wouldn't be able to embarrass the "legitimate" participants in the debates.  So Ralph Nader was kept outside of the debates, marginalized by the "free press" as somewhat of a joke, and we ended up having the Supreme an interesting thing about our "independent" judiciary in that Bush vs. Gore decision is the fact that all of the judges who supported state's rights actually voted against the state court's decision and those judges supposedly in favor of more federal power over the states voted in support of the state's decision.  Even our Supreme Court's shit stinks.

   So everyone make sure you're registered to vote.  It's an important election.  Most people will go and exercise their one moment of democracy and cast their ballot for the lesser of two evils once again.  We'll try and protect the little we have and hope for the best.  Probably President Obama will win reelection and Mitt Romney will fade away soon after.  Maybe one day we will get a chance to vote for a candidate who is able to rise to a level above our shitty political games and our potential will not continue to be squandered.  Good luck.  (And remember to flush...our shit stinks too.)

 

After I landed in Havana

   After my (in)direct flight from Tampa to Havana, the clock started ticking.  I only had a week before I had to return.  My wife was waiting for me and my grandfather at the airport.  I was extremely happy to see her since she and my two kids had gone three weeks earlier.  Everything in the airport went smoothly.  I hadn't exceeded the pounds permitted in my baggage, so there were no charges.  But since my last time in Cuba, I noticed that the airport had been redone quite nicely.  When I got to my mother-in-law's house in Regla, my kids spotted me and wouldn't let go!  I'm glad they hadn't forgotten me especially since every time I tried to talk to them over the phone while we were apart they seemed much more interested in getting back to whatever they were doing and didn't have much to say!  They were having to much fun.

   From that point on, things were rushed.  My grandfather came along for two reasons.  He's 90 years old and in pretty damn good shape.  His brother is 96 years old and isn't so he wanted to get to see him since he had the opportunity.  The other reason is that his grandmother had built a chapel back in the 1880's in Pinar del Rio and he wanted to go there while he is still able.  He hasn't been to the chapel in over 60 years and nothing was going to stop him from going there now.  He had contacted the priest prior to the trip so he knew my grandfather was coming.  Oh yeah, the priest turned out to be a relative.  Now I'm not religious at all, not even a bit (I'm pretty sure the term is atheist). I understand that religion is important to some people so for my grandfather, going to the chapel was fantastic. 

   The plan was originally to leave the first morning, Sunday, and drive straight to San Juan y Martinez in Pinar del Rio and go to the chapel.  But the priest wanted us to give him two days to clear the path to the chapel first, which was overgrown with marabu.  So instead we went to Las Terrazas, where the late musician Polo Montanez lived.  We stayed the night there and headed off to Vinales the next morning.  We stayed the night there and caught some of the baseball game between the U.S. team and Cuba.  Basically my kids wanted to be in the pool in both places and we didn't get to see much, but what we did see was beautiful.

   The third morning we finally headed to San Juan y Martinez.  We met the preist there at the church in that city.  He's the person who had the keys to the chapel and had the path cleaned up to make the trip possible.  The scratches on his arms from the marabu showed us that plenty of work had been done.  We followed him to a house where we waited for him to get a truck and a chorus to sing during a mass he was to give for my grandfather.  We hopped in the truck and made our way 12 kilometers up a hill that would have been impossible to scale with a regular car.  And when we got to the top, my grandfather was finally able to see the chapel that he hasn't visited in over 60 years.  As he said, "mission accomplished"!

   The preist gave a mass and the chorus sang.  After that, he asked my grandfather to say a few words which was pretty difficult since he was pretty chocked up and emotional.  Like I said before, I'm not at all religious, but it was truly a beautiful moment seeing the happiness of my grandfather.  There is a plaque on the wall dedicated to his grandmother who died in 1925 when he was only three years old.  Things got cut a bit short because a storm was coming and we had to make it back down the hill and the chorus had their instruments with them and wouldn't want them to get destroyed in the rain.

   We made it back to the church in San Juan y Martinez, dropped the preist off, got some gas, and then we were off to la Ciudad Pinar del Rio.  We ate lunch at the top of the tallest building in the city.  (Our taxi driver most certainly made his commission for bringing us there which was fine by us since that was his only chance during the trip to bring us to a place that didn't bring us a menu with prices!)  Then we were off to La Habana.

Cuba "Experts" at the Hilton Miami Downtown

This is a response to the meeting of Cuba "experts" at the Hilton Miami Downtown.


Of course Cuba is facing a difficult economic situation. Twenty years ago, the collapse of its trading partners, a loss of about 90% of its trade, was devastating. Everyone on the planet is aware of this. Contrary to its biggest adversaries' predictions, it survived. Part of the survival mode included a tightening of society which supplied adversaries ammunition in their attempts to discredit the revolution. Despite the island's adversaries public confidence in Cuba's demise, their uncertainty lead them to push through the Torricelli Act and subsequently the Helms-Burton act in order to stack the deck against Cuba's survival. They failed.

Fast forward 20 years and the Cuban revolution continues. In the mean time, the ties with Latin America have strengthened as population after population has elected governments which are rejecting the idea of being the backyard of the United States. All over Latin America, people and leaders never miss an opportunity to praise Cuba for its steadfast determination not to return to its neo-colonial status. No longer do the nations of the world make up excuses to support the embargo that the US chooses to maintain against Cuba, so much so that the policy itself has become one of the main points of contention in the hemisphere which could end up being the end of regional organizations and alternative organizations have already been created without the participation of the United States. The isolation of Cuba is actually becoming the isolation of the United States. (To be clear, I'm not saying that countries are going to embargo the US, but that they are much less concerned with the hypocritical positions that it takes. The diplomatic influence is at an all time low and is likely to remain that way.)

The reason these "experts" must compare Cuba with China or Vietnam is that they have a need to analyze Cuba simplistically. They aren't involved in the process, they haven't much influence over it, and they have a dogmatic opposition to Cuba's political establishment. Many of the "revelations" of these "experts" have already been spoken about in Cuba and they are merely regurgitating them. They seem unable to imagine other possibilities for Cuba's future. Why must it be only this or that?

The need for Cuba to adjust itself to today's realities is a given. Why wouldn't Cuba maintain a high level of control over its major industries? Why would it need to micro manage the tiniest parts of its economy? Why wouldn't Cuba determine the rules for foreign investments and partnerships in the country? Cuba's transition from its former model to whatever it becomes doesn't have to be prescribed from outside. Should Cuba hasten its transition? Some may believe so. But I believe that the caution that Cuba is proceeding with is partially due to its knowledge as a witness to the terrible disaster that occurred in the former Soviet Republics thanks to a shock therapy.

Oscar Espinosa Chepe is correct when he says that the situation is "delicate and difficult". He cites the lack of materials as a problem. Isn't the extra-territorial nature of US laws a large factor in obtaining many materials? Of course it is, but that's the point of the laws, make it difficult for Cuba.

Joaquin Pujol says that many of the self-employed were not working in state jobs, were possibly students, or were already self-employed but illegally. Quite possible. But he fails to take in to account the people who are not self-employed but are employed now in the private sector. Who are they? If they had been unemployed before, they now aren't. If the had state jobs before, they are probably earning more now than before. And if they were students, well they have now joined the workforce. What's his point other than to downplay the positive aspects of the reforms?

As for Vegard Bye, he simply thinks in the China or Vietnam scenario showing his lack of depth for Cuba analysis.

If this article is meant to be about the economic model, it is strange how it ends up talking about the political one. The idea that solid economic situations are directly due to "liberal democracies" seems to be oblivious to the crisis in Europe and the United States, both considered meccas of liberal democracies, both suffering from near economic implosions within the capitalist system, and both suffering from discontent among workers that dwarfs the examples of discontent that we are supposed to imagine are on the verge of a "Cuban Spring" on the island.

This is in response to the following article:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/02/2928266/cuba-still-searching-for-economic.html

Direct Flight. Tampa-->La Habana

   A little over a week ago I finally got the chance to take advantage of the new direct flights from Tampa to Havana.  At the airport, everything went smoothly and the fact that I didn't have to drive for four hours to Miami before travelling to Cuba made things much more enjoyable. 

   We left pretty much on time and the flight was just barely over an hour.  Just as we were approaching the island, I could see through the window a tremendous cloud which looked sort of like a giant wall.  It was something that would have made a good picture.  It was beautiful.  As we were about to fly in to the cloud the plane turned to the right and started circling.  The pilot announced that there was a storm over the airport in Havana so we had to circle for a little while before we would be cleared to land.

    After about thirty minutes, the next announcement by the pilot was that we were being directed to Miami to land and wait for the storm to pass before being able to land in Cuba.  The ultimate irony.  My first direct flight from Tampa to Havana and I still had to stop in Miami!

  As time permits, I'll describe more of my trip, which was fantastic but a bit on the short side.  One week isn't long enough.

Imperialism, "That's Just Tough."

   The United States.  This is the country that the word democracy is probably spoken more often than in any other place on earth.  It is used as an idea to make us feel as if we the people can determine the course of our destiny.  It is used as an excuse for poor relations with some other countries.  But it is also something that is not respected in the least bit. 

   The government in Washington pretends to promote democracy around the world and even defend it.  Reality is much different.  Washington has interfered with governments around the world overthrowing elected leaders and maintaining governments willing to overlook the wishes of their own peoples to serve the economic interests of the U.S.  It's not a conspiracy theory, it is fact.  There are countless examples to support this assertion.

   Let's go to the words of Duane Clarridge, a former CIA agent, who explains clearly the special right to intervene which the United States feels that it has.  Here is a back and forth between he and another man about U.S. involvement in the overthrow of Salvador Allende and the support for Pinochet:

John Pilger: "It is a time in which almost everybody, in the present situation, regards as a dark time, in which the CIA played a major role."

Duane Clarridge: "That's right.  They played a major role in overthrowing what's his name."

JP: "Uhh, what's his name was Salvador Allende."

DC: "Yeah fine.  OK"

JP: "He was democratically elected."

DC: "Right, OK."

JP: "Is that OK?  To overthrow a democratically elected government?"

DC: "It depends on what your national security interests are."

JP: "Are you denying that Pinochet caused huge suffering in that country?"

DC: "Huge I don't buy.  That he committed crimes, I agree."

JP: "But it's worth it?  Is that what you're saying?  That his crimes are worth it?"

DC: "Yeah. Sometimes, unfortunately, things have to be changed in a rather ugly way."

   Now at this point, isn't it obvious that Washington puts democracy well below its real interests?  The overthrow of Allende isn't a strange case.  It is just one of many examples.  Back to the exchange...

On El Salvador, here's Duane Clarridge:

JP: "According to the truth commission..."

DC: "Oh come on John.  If this is where you're going, you're wasting my time.  That's all bullshit.  Those people all had agendas. "

JP: "So it's bullshit that the Salvadoran military were murdering tens of thousands of people?"

DC: "I bet you can't count more than two hundred in the whole 10-12 years."

   I bet that either he imagines a much different history than the people of El Salvador.  Maybe he does so to sleep better at night.  But given his attitude towards other countries, he probably doesn't lose sleep due to anything that the U.S. has done.

JP: "What right have you, when I mean you I mean the CIA, the United States government, or any foreign power,  what right do you have to do what you do in other countries?"

DC: "National security interests."

JP: "But that's a divine right, isn't it?  Because the people you do it to have no say in it."

DC: "Well, that's just tough.  We're going to protect ourselves and we're going to go on protecting ourselves cause we end up protecting all of you.  Let's not forget that."

   Yeah, let's not forget that little myth that helps us justify in our minds our disrespect for others and the atrocities we support.  Because without that myth, we'd have to wonder why on earth the United States even bothers talking about the need for democracy or the use of it as a pretext for continuous interventions in other nations

DC: "We'll intervene whenever we feel it's in our national security interest to intervene.  And if you don't like it, love it.  Get used to it world.  We're not going to put up with nonsense.  If our interests are threatened, we're going to do it."

   Over the past couple of decades the examples have continued.  Haiti (twice), Venezuela, Honduras, Ecuador, and Paraguay(probably, but it is still early since the ouster of Lugo) have all suffered coups and coup attempts.  Cuba has been the victim of attempts of subversion for a half of a century.  Other nations such as Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Brazil have all been pressured by Washington and had to deal with attempts by the media to influence their elections.  Beyond this hemisphere there are many more.

   Another thing about national security interests, are these the interests of the American people, or are they the interests of those who have the attention of the government so much so that ordinary people's interests aren't even considered?  My suspicion is that given the total contempt for democracy, policy makers couldn't care less about acting in the interests of the American people.  They act completely undemocratically with so much disdain for those who try to participate in democracy in other countries that that disdain carries over in to our own country.

Our politicians don't speak like Duane Clarridge, if they did I'm sure that most people would be quick to find other politicians to replace them.  But Mr. Clarridge isn't running for any office so he doesn't worry too much about his words sounding appallingly arrogant.  This is an imperialist attitude.  These are imperialist actions.  For those who desire a better world, these are very frustrating.  Most American people do believe in democracy and wouldn't want to be preventing others from having their own.  Our leaders appear before cameras and speak in ways that try to convince us of all sorts of odd threats that most often times are baseless and even false.  They have to lie to us, with smiles on their faces, to keep employing subversive tactics around the world.  If they were to tell us things like Duane Clarridge does, they would find out that their smiles wouldn't be enough to persuade us that they are supporters of democracy.

Mr. President, Thanks for the Response

I called the White House a while back to let the administration know my opposition to the move in Congress to bring back the Bush era restrictions on travel.  The operator kindly took my comment and information.  Last week I got an email letter from President Obama.  This is what it said:

Dear Jimmy C: (Note: It didn't say Jimmy C. This is the only change I've made to the letter.)

Thank you for sharing your perspective on American foreign policy towards Cuba. I appreciate hearing from you.

The promotion of democracy and human rights in Cuba is in our national interest and is a key component of our Nation's foreign policy. Measures that decrease dependency of the Cuban people on the Castro regime and promote contacts between Cuban Americans and their relatives in Cuba are means to encourage positive change in Cuba.

My Administration has taken steps to reach out to the Cuban people. Cuban Americans should be able to visit and assist loved ones in Cuba, and that is why I have eased restrictions on family visits and remittances. Cuban-American visitors are our country's best ambassadors for promoting freedom in Cuba.

To increase interaction and the flow of information directly to the Cuban people, I have authorized opening telecommunications links between Cuba and the United States and allowing for the export of donated personal communications devices. We have also helped the Cuban people by expanding the list of humanitarian items that Americans can send to Cuba, as well as expanding the scope of eligible gift parcel donors and donees.

I believe these initiatives benefit our Nation and help support the Cuban people's desire to determine freely their country's future. For more information on this and other important policy issues, I encourage you to visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Well, I appreciate that the president took time out of his busy schedule of campaigning and running the country, but there are a few points that don't sit well with me.

During my phone call, I didn't express anything about the overall policy towards Cuba.  My comments were strictly about the efforts of a certain congressman trying to restrict travel to the island.  But since he decided to bring it up, let's talk about our policy towards Cuba. 

By stating that the United States has a policy of promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba, I have to ask, is it the United States' policy to only accept as democracy political systems that we like?  Cuba has elections and although their system differs from ours, what exactly makes it unacceptable?  Is it unacceptable that candidates in the Cuban process don't have to raise incredible amounts of money to have a chance to win an election?  Is that to be considered a violation of free speech since our Supreme Court says so?  My goodness, do you not know how many Americans feel so hopeless about our own electoral system?  It's really hard for me to believe that your biggest donors don't drown out my voice on important issues. 

Speaking of free speech, which I would imagine could fall in the human rights category, have you any idea how much Cubans complain about things?  A visit to the island would certainly help you rethink your view that speech is limited on the island.  

Contacts between Cubans in both countries are very important and there is no doubt that the decisions you made regarding unlimited travel and remittances have been very positive.  But why not let all Americans travel without having to obtain a license to do so?  Wouldn't it also be positive for Americans to meet Cuban people and vice versa?  What makes Cuba so different that Americans can't just go there if they wish to?  It really is ironic when so much is made about the difficult process that Cubans need to go through to travel abroad. 

If you, Mr. President, feel that you promote policies that decrease the Cuban people's dependence on their government, and since that desire is shared by the Cuban government itself as we can see by the changes occurring in Cuba now,  wouldn't increased travel by Americans help foster your goals?  Wouldn't travelers help by spending their money in the new entrepreneurs' restaurants, lodging, and various other services that they've created?  Of course it would.  But I understand the politics of the issue and the forces that you are up against.  Trust me, if you were to make groundbreaking steps towards normalizing relations with Cuba, those forces holding our politicians hostage to their hateful desires would shrivel up and disappear to the point that no one would have to worry about them anymore.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying that your administration has taken steps to reach out to the Cuban people.  You've got me confused there.  Believe it or not, the majority of the Cuban people are not too happy about your administration's decision to continue to back the embargo of their nation.  There are plenty of problems in Cuba that are not the making of our country, but the largest impediment to the full development of their nation is the embargo and Helms-Burton.  I'm sure that you already know this.  You've even spoken of the ineffectiveness of our policies...before you became candidate and President Obama.  I'm not asking you to tell me any national security secrets, but I'm willing to guess that Cuba isn't really a threat to our national security, is it?

Once again, thanks for increasing the scope of what can be sent to Cuba.  But how come, if your interested in expanding communication and equipment to the people of Cuba, Ericsson was fined for repairing such equipment and sending it to Cuba?  It seems that obstacles remain in place under your administration.

Yes, the Cuban people should determine their future just as everyone should, but they should be able to do so without constantly living with a nation like ours trying to determine it for them.  So, with that, I'll end this by saying that it is hard to know that here we are faced with choosing a president who is no doubt friendlier to the situation of families, but is still unwilling to take honest steps towards positive relations with Cuba, which is just as legitimate a nation as ours.

Sincerely,

Jimmy C

Cardinal Ortega...Hard to Digest in Miami

   It burns people to admit that there are independent thinkers in Cuba who receive attention besides the chosen ones who rely heavily on support from US government programs and groups in Miami. What people try to do is paint anyone with any ideological similarities or dialogue with the Cuban government as pawns of the government. There are many people inside and out of Cuba who don't support the ideas and policies of Washington and Miami who don't have any stake in anything on the island and show solidarity with Cuba and its people. And there are others who hate the fact that family members on the island are forced to live under the embargo. {Me for example ;) }


   It's not so. Sure their are people who scream loudly in support of the status quo on the island who do so out of convenience...self-interest is powerful and a universal phenomenon. But are we supposed to pretend that there aren't many people who despite the problems that people face on the island support their government? That's utterly dishonest. Even someone not ideologically 100% in line with every decision taken by the Cuban government can be nationalist and feel that they'd support the imperfect situation as opposed to looking for outsiders to determine their country's affairs. Nationalism...also a powerful and universal phenomenon.


   I'm not a big defender of the Church or any other religious institution, but it's obvious the slanderous accusations that Cardinal Ortega has endured, and will continue to, simply for not walking the line that the people in Miami require to be considered an independent thinker. Ironically, in this country (US) in which there are so many opinions expressed (even if they are ignored by our representatives), the most intolerant group of people are possibly the people who hold prominent positions in Miami, a place that has killed off and violently attacked more people in a shorter amount of time for simply not being hard-lined against revolutionary Cuba than almost any other group. Why these people are even pandered to by our Calle 8 coffee sipping politicians and candidates defies logic.