President Obama made waves in the press recently by speaking in Miami about the need to adjust US policy towards Cuba. Without even proposing anything, just suggesting such a thing is considered to be a major announcement. The fact that it was done in front of an anti-Castro crowd in Miami should give people pause and make you wonder what he meant.
There is no doubt that the President's speech has caused some anti-Castro hardliners, who have supported punishing the Cuban people on the island and abroad, to be concerned. Those hateful people who have made a living as "experts" explaining why causing hardships for Cubans everywhere makes sense and is actually the humane thing to do. Separating families, depriving people of medical advancements developed in both countries, and countless other cruel consequences of US policy towards the island are all of the "achievements" that the hateful people can claim as the fruits of their labor. They have grown quite uncomfortable in recent years as their once decrepit yet prevalent ideology has been diminished in its importance as a feeling of reconciliation has grown and ,according to some surveys, become more popular. What are they to do but dig in their heals and repeat themselves as if what they've said already is something new and not the very nonsense that has become unpopular?
Jaime Suchlicki wrote an article about why the United States needs to maintain the sanctions on Cuba. In it he goes on about how increasing American tourism isn't going to to lead to economic and political changes on the island. I'll actually agree with him on that. Cuba has embarked upon a transformation of its economic system already. It was a very bureaucratized system and it still is, yet it has taken upon itself to begin to lessen the bureaucracy and open a lot of space for individuals to begin their own personal economic activity in the forms of self-proprietors and cooperatives. This has nothing to do with capitalists determining government policies as what happens in many other countries. It has a lot to do with lessening the burden of the state of creating a job for every single person even if jobs become redundant as the Cuban government has explained. The state is freed up form some of its activity such as running barber shops and restaurants, as some commonly used examples, and direct more of its attention to larger endeavors which in turn can improve their efficiency and put the country in a better position to strengthen its achievements like housing, health, and education. None of these achievements are of any concern to Mr. Suchlicki or else he wouldn't be in favor of strangling the Cuban economy from outside as much as possible. Why is it that he wants to deprive Cuba of tourist dollars? Would he perhaps like to make it more difficult to purchase goods from abroad, goods that will be consumed by the Cuban people? Or maybe he doesn't want Cuba to pay its debts more easily so that he can write an article about how Cuba isn't a reliable nation when it comes to paying debt? Pick one. He seems happy to pretend that the influence of our policies don't really have much to do with the troubles that Cuba has faced. Just imagine how many Cuban cigars and how much Cuban rum would be sold in Miami alone if our laws didn't prevent their access to the US market. If he would discount that from happening he should take a look at the table at US Customs after a flight arrives from Havana. It looks like a liquor store or tobacco shop. Surely Mr. Suchlicki wouldn't want to deny supply and demand?!
Furthermore, he claims that ending sanctions would send the wrong message to Latin America. Is he completely mad?? He has mistaken a coffee shop in Little Havana during a Batista happy hour for Latin America! Latin American countries have all stated their opposition to the embargo on the record. If he considers Cuba a dictatorship, that's his prerogative (although I would contend that it's actually his job). But doesn't he realize that every country in the world knows that the United States has no qualms about having great relations with countries which are dictatorships and even kingdoms? Don't Latin American countries know that most of the dictatorships that have existed in their countries were actually supported by the "democracy loving" US administrations? Come on Jaime Suchlicki, do you even understand how foolish of a suggestion you've made by saying that relations with Cuba would send the wrong message to Latin America?
Finally, Mr. Suchlicki pretends that the sanctions is a powerful negotiating tool for the United States. To this all I have to say is that their are no negotiations. Part of the problem is that the US has ignored repeated calls by Cuba to engage in negotiations. If the sanctions are supposedly a tool, I would ask Mr. Suchlicki what and where is the negotiation that it is helpful for? If it is any type of tool at all it would be a wrecking ball constantly swinging back and forth making negotiations nearly impossible for a US administration to seriously negotiate with Cuba.
The Miami Herald has taken a different approach. I can only imagine that since it is the news paper that speaks directly to the Cuban community in Miami, that it has to deal with the fact that the opinion of its audience has changed quite a bit so it must be more clever when thinking of ways to oppose relations with Cuba. It goes as far as calling the President's remarks "encouraging". They instead choose to create a parallel reality, a world which doesn't exist. They claim that Raul Castro has shown that he is determined to hold on to power. In the real world where most of us live, Raul Castro has already given a date when he will no longer be President and has actually supported term limits for the future. Quite different I'd say. Then they urge people to keep in mind the dissidents and the difficulties they face. What they don't want in your mind at all is the fact that the "dissidents" that they highlight on a regular basis are basically creations of the US government itself. Documents accidentally exposed just days ago and others in the past have shown just how involved the US government is involved in the existence and promotion of these chosen ones. Coincidentally, the these "dissidents" have been travelling all over the globe and the US government provides funds for travel to some unknown people. If funds are making their way to the pockets of these famous "dissidents", it would be a stretch to assume that they have a pretty sizable interest in maintaining the current policies!
The Miami Herald makes its common complaints about short term detentions and stifled protesters and delayed trials for a few individuals. But I find it hard to comprehend why we wouldn't sanction ourselves for the treatment of some of our protesters. Plus, we could probably bring something up in the United Nations about our own torture programs, drone assassinations, and probable war criminals that we are responsible for. I'm just saying that we don't exactly have the high ground on these types of issues, but in the parallel universe of the Miami Herald, none of those are serious issues.
Look, since the early days of the Cuban revolution Washington has had one goal, eliminate the Cuban revolution and replace it with a government that bends to the will of Washington. It's a simple idea and one that has no regard for what would happen to the Cuban people and at this point what would happen to the achievements that they have made despite the policy by Washington. But accomplishing this idea has been a headache for policy makers in the United States and after 50 years it is nice at the very least to hear a US president acknowledge publicly that it is an outdated policy that really isn't so useful for anybody. I have no illusions and I understand that as Obama is the figurehead for US interests he simply gets to set the tactics used to achieve US goals. Being that in this matter US goals haven't changed, to me his announcements amount to a tactical change and not so much a realization that Cuba's right to self determination is as real as ours. Perhaps he believes that the US can kill them with kindness or something like that, but regardless of what he thinks any openings in relations or dialogue or friendly contact is a step in the right direction. So many opportunities have been missed so maybe he can make something of the moment and change the policy of isolation which has backfired and isolated the United States and people like Jaime Suchlicki and the editorial board of the Miami Herald.
Showing posts with label Miami Herald. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miami Herald. Show all posts
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Chess in Miami
Fabiola Santiago took the time to write her version of the 50 year old chess match being played between two giants. One is the imperialist giant, the United States. The other is the tiny giant which has been a bulwark in the anti-imperialist camp since 1959, Cuba. Sitting on the side of the imperialist power which is accustomed to getting its way, Santiago is a bit perplexed by how the game has gone so far and displays an uncertainty about what the outcome may be. Hey, chess is a difficult game when your paying attention. Imagine what happens if you only pay attention to half of the board.
Just as are most of the anti-Cuba commentators in Miami unable to recognize that changes are going on in the island, Fabiola Santiago seemed to not be able to figure them in to her prepackaged ideology, quite probably blocking her view of the chess match. Metaphors aside, she is either unwilling or unable to factor in everything so her ability to formulate useful analysis of the situation is hampered by selective choice of information rendering it useless or just plain propaganda.
She passes off some statistics about the number of Cubans who have received visas in the recent period which shows an increase so high that the total exceeds the number the US agreed to in 1994. That's impressive, I mean let's look at the good will of the United States to surpass its agreements. Or, since the US often fell way short of meeting its agreed number, could the US just be trying to catch up? She notes that the Obama administration has expanded tourist visas for Cubans to be valid for five years. She failed to explain that on the other side of the chess board, the Cuban government had eliminated the "white paper" requirement for Cubans to travel. Looking at the chess game as a whole, Obama's move might be considered a defensive one to protect himself from such a difficult situation in which Cubans, who had always been supposedly "trapped" on the island suddenly found themselves free to leave only to be prevented by visa denials by the United States. Fabiola probably missed that one.
Even Ileana Ros-Lehtinen gets in on the confusion by saying that more or less even though anti-Cuba policy is the basis for her career "I don't know what to make of it." Try looking at the entire game mam. "It's a free for all," laments the most out of touch expert on the issue, failing to realize that the policy which allows any Cuban who touches our shores to get political asylum even though that might include Cubans who you don't approve of. For years the policy was used as a way of padding the statistics to show how many people were "fleeing" Cuba. Now some people don't know what to do about all of those "refugees" who want better relations with the island and have diluted the hard line narrative of South Florida.
For the fading hard liners, what may be even more troubling than the refugee "snitches and state security officers" living in Miami and other US cities, are the former hard liners who have been watching the whole chess board. They are lining themselves up and are ready and willing to engage with Cubans on the island, some even wanting to grant loans for the small businesses that have been created on the island. My goodness, if that were to happen the chances of the only acceptable change on the island, one which ushers in a return of pre-revolutionary Cuba with its corruption and domination a the capitalist elites at the expense of almost everyone else is likely never to happen! It wouldn't happen anyway with or without the economic blockade, but the hard liners have to have some kind of hope.
Fabiola resorts to her expertise on international law to remind readers that besides the facts, Cuba remains a danger to the security of the United States. In her infinite wisdom and ahead of the United Nations' experts who are looking in to the North Korean ship carrying out dated military equipment, she has declared it from her side of the chess board in Miami "a violation of international regulations."
Let's not forget that as long as there are people like Fabiola Santiago, the US funded dissidents on the island, and a press always willing to question things no matter how absurd, all things Cuban are "questionable."
Yes, as she said in her article, "a checkmate seems a long way off." I'll add that when there is a checkmate, Fabiola Santiago may be one of the last people to learn of it.
In an article this week by Nelson P. Valdes about Fidel's 87th birthday, he stated one of the most logical and accurate analysis that can pertain to these types of handicapped chess players. He asked "How come talking heads, editorial writers and wishful thinkers were so wrong about a post Fidel or a post Castro’s Cuba?" Then astutely answers "One basic reason is that attention has not been paid to the real developments in the island. Wishful thinking and lies dominated the debate." Well said.
Just as are most of the anti-Cuba commentators in Miami unable to recognize that changes are going on in the island, Fabiola Santiago seemed to not be able to figure them in to her prepackaged ideology, quite probably blocking her view of the chess match. Metaphors aside, she is either unwilling or unable to factor in everything so her ability to formulate useful analysis of the situation is hampered by selective choice of information rendering it useless or just plain propaganda.
She passes off some statistics about the number of Cubans who have received visas in the recent period which shows an increase so high that the total exceeds the number the US agreed to in 1994. That's impressive, I mean let's look at the good will of the United States to surpass its agreements. Or, since the US often fell way short of meeting its agreed number, could the US just be trying to catch up? She notes that the Obama administration has expanded tourist visas for Cubans to be valid for five years. She failed to explain that on the other side of the chess board, the Cuban government had eliminated the "white paper" requirement for Cubans to travel. Looking at the chess game as a whole, Obama's move might be considered a defensive one to protect himself from such a difficult situation in which Cubans, who had always been supposedly "trapped" on the island suddenly found themselves free to leave only to be prevented by visa denials by the United States. Fabiola probably missed that one.
Even Ileana Ros-Lehtinen gets in on the confusion by saying that more or less even though anti-Cuba policy is the basis for her career "I don't know what to make of it." Try looking at the entire game mam. "It's a free for all," laments the most out of touch expert on the issue, failing to realize that the policy which allows any Cuban who touches our shores to get political asylum even though that might include Cubans who you don't approve of. For years the policy was used as a way of padding the statistics to show how many people were "fleeing" Cuba. Now some people don't know what to do about all of those "refugees" who want better relations with the island and have diluted the hard line narrative of South Florida.
For the fading hard liners, what may be even more troubling than the refugee "snitches and state security officers" living in Miami and other US cities, are the former hard liners who have been watching the whole chess board. They are lining themselves up and are ready and willing to engage with Cubans on the island, some even wanting to grant loans for the small businesses that have been created on the island. My goodness, if that were to happen the chances of the only acceptable change on the island, one which ushers in a return of pre-revolutionary Cuba with its corruption and domination a the capitalist elites at the expense of almost everyone else is likely never to happen! It wouldn't happen anyway with or without the economic blockade, but the hard liners have to have some kind of hope.
Fabiola resorts to her expertise on international law to remind readers that besides the facts, Cuba remains a danger to the security of the United States. In her infinite wisdom and ahead of the United Nations' experts who are looking in to the North Korean ship carrying out dated military equipment, she has declared it from her side of the chess board in Miami "a violation of international regulations."
Let's not forget that as long as there are people like Fabiola Santiago, the US funded dissidents on the island, and a press always willing to question things no matter how absurd, all things Cuban are "questionable."
Yes, as she said in her article, "a checkmate seems a long way off." I'll add that when there is a checkmate, Fabiola Santiago may be one of the last people to learn of it.
In an article this week by Nelson P. Valdes about Fidel's 87th birthday, he stated one of the most logical and accurate analysis that can pertain to these types of handicapped chess players. He asked "How come talking heads, editorial writers and wishful thinkers were so wrong about a post Fidel or a post Castro’s Cuba?" Then astutely answers "One basic reason is that attention has not been paid to the real developments in the island. Wishful thinking and lies dominated the debate." Well said.
Monday, April 23, 2012
The Miami Herald Smells Itself
The Miami Herald's editorial board decided to refer to an invitation for Cuba to attend the next Summit of the Americas as inviting a skunk to the party. Of course, the stench of a skunk is that which the Herald's editorial board gives off. It is consistently anti-Cuba in almost every line it writes. It twists reality into its own desired form of fiction and chooses to ignore the obvious. What's interesting is the poll it has on the web page asking if Cuba should be invited to the next summit and 55% responded "yes". People can still think despite the Herald's stench.
"The failure of presidents attending the Summit of the Americas to issue a final declaration because they could not agree on whether to invite Cuba to the next meeting represents a disappointing breakdown of the consensus..." An interesting beginning to the opinion piece. The Herald makes it seem as if the people at the summit just couldn't come up with a unified statement about Cuba's possible future attendance. But what actually happened is that only the United States and Canada opposed Cuba's attendance. All others agreed that Cuba should be present, some going as far as saying this would be the last summit of its kind if Cuba were not to be invited to the next.
"This failure calls into question the very nature of the OAS. How can a coalition of countries ostensibly devoted to promoting and strengthening democracy invite Cuba to a meeting of like-minded countries?" What the Herald fails to remember, or cares to include, is that the OAS voted in 2009 to lift Cuba's suspension which began in 1962. Besides that fact, Cuba has repeatedly explained that it has no interest in re-joining the OAS. The Cuban government has stated that if invited, it would likely attend the Summit of the Americas. Is not democracy the expression of will of the majority? If so, then the U.S. and Canada, by refusing to accept the will of the participants, are showing their disdain for any "democratic" process which is not under their control. Yes, that is the mark of hypocrites, not supporters of democracy. But that scent of hypocrisy is masked by the skunkish stench that the Miami Herald exudes.
Since it is clear that the U.S. policy towards Cuba is one that lack in both credibility and support among the nations of the summit, Washington (and Canada) find themselves more isolated than ever before. The Herald pointed out correctly that the issue of decriminalization of drugs also became an issue that was difficult for Washington to handle at the summit. Of course the stench from the Herald permeated the way in which it described the issue. The Herald claims that the legalization of drugs was what certain participants were pushing. A different approach to the way the failed War on Drugs is a bit more accurate. Cuba recently stated that legalizing drugs would be irresponsible and the U.S. State Department also gave Cuba a lot of praise in it annual International Narcotics Strategy Report. Hey, why not have Washington allow an invitation for Cuba....it needs more allies on this issue!
"If nothing else, the Cartagena summit gave Washington an agenda for the next such meeting. It’s not scheduled to take place until 2015, but it’s not too early to start planning for it." The Herald smelled itself for so long that it finished its opinion with this line. The skunk of a news outlet doesn't realize that others have already began planning. They may not have another summit if they are ignored and Cuba isn't invited. Start planning Washington.
"The failure of presidents attending the Summit of the Americas to issue a final declaration because they could not agree on whether to invite Cuba to the next meeting represents a disappointing breakdown of the consensus..." An interesting beginning to the opinion piece. The Herald makes it seem as if the people at the summit just couldn't come up with a unified statement about Cuba's possible future attendance. But what actually happened is that only the United States and Canada opposed Cuba's attendance. All others agreed that Cuba should be present, some going as far as saying this would be the last summit of its kind if Cuba were not to be invited to the next.
"This failure calls into question the very nature of the OAS. How can a coalition of countries ostensibly devoted to promoting and strengthening democracy invite Cuba to a meeting of like-minded countries?" What the Herald fails to remember, or cares to include, is that the OAS voted in 2009 to lift Cuba's suspension which began in 1962. Besides that fact, Cuba has repeatedly explained that it has no interest in re-joining the OAS. The Cuban government has stated that if invited, it would likely attend the Summit of the Americas. Is not democracy the expression of will of the majority? If so, then the U.S. and Canada, by refusing to accept the will of the participants, are showing their disdain for any "democratic" process which is not under their control. Yes, that is the mark of hypocrites, not supporters of democracy. But that scent of hypocrisy is masked by the skunkish stench that the Miami Herald exudes.
Since it is clear that the U.S. policy towards Cuba is one that lack in both credibility and support among the nations of the summit, Washington (and Canada) find themselves more isolated than ever before. The Herald pointed out correctly that the issue of decriminalization of drugs also became an issue that was difficult for Washington to handle at the summit. Of course the stench from the Herald permeated the way in which it described the issue. The Herald claims that the legalization of drugs was what certain participants were pushing. A different approach to the way the failed War on Drugs is a bit more accurate. Cuba recently stated that legalizing drugs would be irresponsible and the U.S. State Department also gave Cuba a lot of praise in it annual International Narcotics Strategy Report. Hey, why not have Washington allow an invitation for Cuba....it needs more allies on this issue!
"If nothing else, the Cartagena summit gave Washington an agenda for the next such meeting. It’s not scheduled to take place until 2015, but it’s not too early to start planning for it." The Herald smelled itself for so long that it finished its opinion with this line. The skunk of a news outlet doesn't realize that others have already began planning. They may not have another summit if they are ignored and Cuba isn't invited. Start planning Washington.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Where To Begin? (Simple)
I'll keep it short and sweet due to a lack of time...
This is my response to Fabiola Santiago's attempt to diminish the Pope's visit to Cuba.
"Where do we begin?" asks Fabiola Santiago. That's a good question. But to answer it, one must be serious in their search for an answer.
A good place to start would be asking if those who were rescued at sea had visas from the U.S. or have they ever applied for visas? And if they had, then the next question is how many were denied visas from the same country that would welcome them after they decided to not go through the normal immigration process and would simply consider them "political refugees" simply to perpetuate the idea of repression.
Another place we can begin is considering to stick with the fact that those who decided to go to Spain after being released from jail sentences in Cuba, did not have to go. They could have stayed in Cuba as did some of the ex-prisoners. Not only did the man who committed suicide choose to go to Spain, but apparently, and unfortunately, he discovered that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.
We can begin by not only imagining that the 50+ year old embargo either doesn't exist or is about to force Cuba to change into what Washington and Miami wants it to, but by asking what are the effects of the chosen policy on the lives in Cuba. And what unnecessary hardships do the people face thanks to the far reaching policies of the embargo, the Torriceli Act, and the Helms-Burton Act?
If a person chooses to ask the questions so often avoided yet so obviously vital, then that person may end up like the catholic quoted in this article, questioning her faith. Why? Because those who choose not to acknowledge the situation as it really is, are actually the ones who are still adrift in the turbulent waters of the politics of Cuba, Miami style.
This is my response to Fabiola Santiago's attempt to diminish the Pope's visit to Cuba.
"Where do we begin?" asks Fabiola Santiago. That's a good question. But to answer it, one must be serious in their search for an answer.
A good place to start would be asking if those who were rescued at sea had visas from the U.S. or have they ever applied for visas? And if they had, then the next question is how many were denied visas from the same country that would welcome them after they decided to not go through the normal immigration process and would simply consider them "political refugees" simply to perpetuate the idea of repression.
Another place we can begin is considering to stick with the fact that those who decided to go to Spain after being released from jail sentences in Cuba, did not have to go. They could have stayed in Cuba as did some of the ex-prisoners. Not only did the man who committed suicide choose to go to Spain, but apparently, and unfortunately, he discovered that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.
We can begin by not only imagining that the 50+ year old embargo either doesn't exist or is about to force Cuba to change into what Washington and Miami wants it to, but by asking what are the effects of the chosen policy on the lives in Cuba. And what unnecessary hardships do the people face thanks to the far reaching policies of the embargo, the Torriceli Act, and the Helms-Burton Act?
If a person chooses to ask the questions so often avoided yet so obviously vital, then that person may end up like the catholic quoted in this article, questioning her faith. Why? Because those who choose not to acknowledge the situation as it really is, are actually the ones who are still adrift in the turbulent waters of the politics of Cuba, Miami style.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Pedro Roig's Train to Nowhere
The former head of Radio Marti has left his delusions on the pages of the Miami Herald. He describes Cuba's government as "a train to where". He unfortunately doesn't realize that he himself has a seat in the actual train to nowhere, the one which the extremist circles of South Florida have commandeered for decades, chugging along to the brink of irrelevance.
He refers to the very real changes that are occurring in Cuba as being empty. As is typical for the anti-Cuba crowd in Miami, only by ignoring the people of the island, can he claim that the train is empty. A great number of people have been experiencing the positive changes that have been adopted, but of course to Mr. Roig, any changes must be ignored if they don't include a re-establishment of the semi-colonial type of government which was overthrown in 1959.
His description of Cuba as a Jurassic Park is better suited for those groups that meet yearly in Miami at the Bay of Pigs Museum to pay homage to the most quickly defeated group of mercenaries that the hemisphere has ever known. Sure, Cuba has a long way to become a fully developed country, but its advancements in many fields is quite impressive and its gestures of true international solidarity is well documented and praised world wide. The same can't be said of the groups sipping cafecitos on Calle 8 plotting ways to destroy what good people have built.
Having headed a radio station named after Jose Marti, a station created by the empire bent on crushing the dreams of the Cuban revolutionary, it's hard to understand how he claims that revolutionary Cuba is morally bankrupt. Not only was he a paid lackey of the U.S. government, whose job was to propagate nonsense to the island of Cuba, but his time in that position was embarrassingly useless and cronyism plagued the tax payer funded radio station. He was, as the station itself still is, a parasite industry which serves no purpose other than tickling the bellies of the anti-Cuba crowd as they enrich themselves at the expense of the American people.
"But the tragic show must go on. It is obvious that we Cubans have difficulties for profound meditation and logical analysis." These are Mr. Roig's words. They don't describe the people on the island, but the people within his small group of associates. He is doing his best to prove himself correct!
He refers to the very real changes that are occurring in Cuba as being empty. As is typical for the anti-Cuba crowd in Miami, only by ignoring the people of the island, can he claim that the train is empty. A great number of people have been experiencing the positive changes that have been adopted, but of course to Mr. Roig, any changes must be ignored if they don't include a re-establishment of the semi-colonial type of government which was overthrown in 1959.
His description of Cuba as a Jurassic Park is better suited for those groups that meet yearly in Miami at the Bay of Pigs Museum to pay homage to the most quickly defeated group of mercenaries that the hemisphere has ever known. Sure, Cuba has a long way to become a fully developed country, but its advancements in many fields is quite impressive and its gestures of true international solidarity is well documented and praised world wide. The same can't be said of the groups sipping cafecitos on Calle 8 plotting ways to destroy what good people have built.
Having headed a radio station named after Jose Marti, a station created by the empire bent on crushing the dreams of the Cuban revolutionary, it's hard to understand how he claims that revolutionary Cuba is morally bankrupt. Not only was he a paid lackey of the U.S. government, whose job was to propagate nonsense to the island of Cuba, but his time in that position was embarrassingly useless and cronyism plagued the tax payer funded radio station. He was, as the station itself still is, a parasite industry which serves no purpose other than tickling the bellies of the anti-Cuba crowd as they enrich themselves at the expense of the American people.
"But the tragic show must go on. It is obvious that we Cubans have difficulties for profound meditation and logical analysis." These are Mr. Roig's words. They don't describe the people on the island, but the people within his small group of associates. He is doing his best to prove himself correct!
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Pope's Visit and the Choices That the Cubans in Miami Face
This is my comment to the opinion by one person's take on the Pope's Visit to Cuba which was in the Miami Herald. As usual, the opinion tries to belittle the Pope's visit with the typical condescending tone of the anti-Cuba crowd, which is finding itself more marginalized by the day.
"From afar, by choice, the Cuban community in South Florida can do a few things. They can, under current law, send money and packages of helpful goods to their families on the island. Many do already and the gestures are always welcomed.
Also, they can become more vocal in their desires to build on the connections they have on the island by insisting that those who represent their districts do not support the hurtful policies that have a huge hand in some of the difficulties that the Cubans on the island experience. Cuba's economy should be able to grow without the unnecessary obstacles posed by the embargo and Helms-Burton.
They can let it be known that the politicians such as Diaz-Balart, Ros-Lehtinen, and Rubio represent a shrinking minority of folks who don't want life to be better on the island.
One thing that they cannot do, nor ever will be able to do, is determine how Cuba decides to conduct its affairs. One can agree or disagree, but no one outside of Cuba can make a sovereign Cuba do anything that it doesn't feel is in its interest. Not even the Pope, who I'm sure won't be imposing himself on anyone. He will simply be lending his spiritual support to those who feel they would like it."
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/10/2583319/a-sliver-of-hope-in-popes-visit.html#storylink=cpy
"From afar, by choice, the Cuban community in South Florida can do a few things. They can, under current law, send money and packages of helpful goods to their families on the island. Many do already and the gestures are always welcomed.
Also, they can become more vocal in their desires to build on the connections they have on the island by insisting that those who represent their districts do not support the hurtful policies that have a huge hand in some of the difficulties that the Cubans on the island experience. Cuba's economy should be able to grow without the unnecessary obstacles posed by the embargo and Helms-Burton.
They can let it be known that the politicians such as Diaz-Balart, Ros-Lehtinen, and Rubio represent a shrinking minority of folks who don't want life to be better on the island.
One thing that they cannot do, nor ever will be able to do, is determine how Cuba decides to conduct its affairs. One can agree or disagree, but no one outside of Cuba can make a sovereign Cuba do anything that it doesn't feel is in its interest. Not even the Pope, who I'm sure won't be imposing himself on anyone. He will simply be lending his spiritual support to those who feel they would like it."
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/10/2583319/a-sliver-of-hope-in-popes-visit.html#storylink=cpy
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Miami and D.C.; Axis of Propaganda
Jose Azel. Just one of the many whose articles or opinion pieces on the subject of Cuba should be considered as nothing more than litter. His writings add nothing of any intelligence to the debate about US policy towards the island.
As opposed to taking an honest opinion about the subject, his most recent piece attempts to clutter the minds of the readers. Iran is a touchy subject here in the US, especially within the context of our political discourse which heavily relies on fear mongering. Talking heads and politicians alike have exploited the terrorist attacks in 2001 to justify every military action, every torture, every secret prison, and every sacrificed civil liberty. Political candidates and office holders are almost frozen by their fear of appearing weak so that they march to the drum beat of the military industrial complex which profits from war whether it is a quagmire or a relatively simple drone strike to apply the death penalty on a perceived enemy without showing the strength and confidence of due process.
By associating Cuba with Iran, Mr. Azel is counting on readers to imagine a new "axis of evil" which threatens the US. He continues attempting to portray Cuba in a bad light for supporting Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power. Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, and by that measure, Iran is within its rights to carry on with its nuclear activities. Washington has disregarded the spirit of so many treaties, why would it be expected to treat Iran's rights as a signatory to this one any differently?
Everyone on earth is aware that the reason Washington is concerned about Iran having nuclear power has nothing to do with its own security but that it would neutralize Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region. Only a purely arrogant attitude can suggest that Iran has no right to defend itself.
But that's all part of the game Mr Azel plays. His entire argument attempts to claim that we need to be concerned about "rogue" type nations. We should be, but "rogue" by his standards is one that isn't dominated by Washington or Europe. Cuba has not been willing to follow the dictates of Washington since 1959 and therefore the arrogant people in power believe it should be considered a problem.
Azel's argument though, is being made at a time when growing numbers of Americans want to move beyond the senseless embargo and are becoming more vocal. Even more troublesome for Mr. Azel is that the same trend can be found amongst Cubans living in the US. The mighty power of the anti-Cuba groups has been waning in recent years so it is natural that they employ tactics like Mr. Azel chooses to employ.
Mr.Azel states that a relationship between Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela is "perplexing". The three countries have different economic systems and religious beliefs. Should this be a stumbling block for respect between nations? Of course not. What brings these countries together? Mutual interests. Mutually beneficial trade. Mr. Azel would like our imaginations to come to the idea that the mutual interest shared by these countries is something like the destruction of the US, but that is a political game meant for the people who are unwilling to think clearly. Cuba and Iran suffer from sanctions and it is natural that they would seek to find ways to benefit from trade between each other. Washington can sanction those two countries all it wants but it clearly can't prevent them from trading with each other. Necessity will trump economic and religious ideologies, why else would Washington be so friendly with Saudi Arabia or China for a couple of examples?
Mr. Azel knows that people can understand that it is normal for these countries to do business, but true to his anti-Cuba form, he slips into his analysis the charge of illicit business going on between them. Extremists like him always feel the need to make things appear more sinister than they actually are. He says that we would be mistaken to view their dealings through our "western" perspective. What is special about our perspective? Is not every country seeking to better itself economically? Ahh, but his arrogance reveals itself. "They" according to him are different. If he can convince us of that, then we can imagine them to be inferior, proclaiming ourselves more enlightened, more benevolent.
Thinking that he himself is more enlightened than the rest of us, Mr. Azel goes into some nonsense about the unifying factor is the hostility of these countries towards the US, once again looking to cause reason to worry. He can't except that Bolivia and Ecuador also don't follow the rules of the Northern giant, so he deduces that they too are under the influence of the Iranian government or Castro (the ultimate vulgarity for a man who works in the University of Miami's Institute of Cuban and Cuban-American Studies).
What this pseudo-intellectual is unwilling to admit is that there is a tremendous popular awakening in Latin America and a wave of elections being won by candidates who aren't anti-American but pro their people. These anti-imperialists are speaking in a way that irks the dominant powers of yesterday who are more likely to try to slander them than respect them. That is why he feels the need to suggest that we fear South-South friendships that run counter to the status quo. He pushes the idea that we should fear them and our foreign policy should be more aggressive, lumping all countries who strive to make their own future free from foreign domination into the sinister camp.
It's time for thoughtfulness to defeat Mr. Azel's and others' arrogance and story telling. Cuba has no history of aggressive actions towards the US. In fact, it has been an victim of over 50 years of aggression and economic warfare by Washington and the extremists in Miami. The rest of the world is aware what kind of dangerous stories are created by extremists in the US. Just look at what our lies led to in Iraq. Mr. Azel is just one more creative mind trying to present to us an alternate reality, one in which we should be fearful of countries taking their own paths, that they threaten our tranquility. His silliness needs to be recognized for what it is, one more story meant to portray revolutionary Cuba as the boogeyman 90 miles away.
You can read Jose Azel's newest addition to Miami's axis of propaganda at :
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/10/2539364/the-tehran-havana-caracas-axis.html
As opposed to taking an honest opinion about the subject, his most recent piece attempts to clutter the minds of the readers. Iran is a touchy subject here in the US, especially within the context of our political discourse which heavily relies on fear mongering. Talking heads and politicians alike have exploited the terrorist attacks in 2001 to justify every military action, every torture, every secret prison, and every sacrificed civil liberty. Political candidates and office holders are almost frozen by their fear of appearing weak so that they march to the drum beat of the military industrial complex which profits from war whether it is a quagmire or a relatively simple drone strike to apply the death penalty on a perceived enemy without showing the strength and confidence of due process.
By associating Cuba with Iran, Mr. Azel is counting on readers to imagine a new "axis of evil" which threatens the US. He continues attempting to portray Cuba in a bad light for supporting Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power. Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, and by that measure, Iran is within its rights to carry on with its nuclear activities. Washington has disregarded the spirit of so many treaties, why would it be expected to treat Iran's rights as a signatory to this one any differently?
Everyone on earth is aware that the reason Washington is concerned about Iran having nuclear power has nothing to do with its own security but that it would neutralize Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region. Only a purely arrogant attitude can suggest that Iran has no right to defend itself.
But that's all part of the game Mr Azel plays. His entire argument attempts to claim that we need to be concerned about "rogue" type nations. We should be, but "rogue" by his standards is one that isn't dominated by Washington or Europe. Cuba has not been willing to follow the dictates of Washington since 1959 and therefore the arrogant people in power believe it should be considered a problem.
Azel's argument though, is being made at a time when growing numbers of Americans want to move beyond the senseless embargo and are becoming more vocal. Even more troublesome for Mr. Azel is that the same trend can be found amongst Cubans living in the US. The mighty power of the anti-Cuba groups has been waning in recent years so it is natural that they employ tactics like Mr. Azel chooses to employ.
Mr.Azel states that a relationship between Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela is "perplexing". The three countries have different economic systems and religious beliefs. Should this be a stumbling block for respect between nations? Of course not. What brings these countries together? Mutual interests. Mutually beneficial trade. Mr. Azel would like our imaginations to come to the idea that the mutual interest shared by these countries is something like the destruction of the US, but that is a political game meant for the people who are unwilling to think clearly. Cuba and Iran suffer from sanctions and it is natural that they would seek to find ways to benefit from trade between each other. Washington can sanction those two countries all it wants but it clearly can't prevent them from trading with each other. Necessity will trump economic and religious ideologies, why else would Washington be so friendly with Saudi Arabia or China for a couple of examples?
Mr. Azel knows that people can understand that it is normal for these countries to do business, but true to his anti-Cuba form, he slips into his analysis the charge of illicit business going on between them. Extremists like him always feel the need to make things appear more sinister than they actually are. He says that we would be mistaken to view their dealings through our "western" perspective. What is special about our perspective? Is not every country seeking to better itself economically? Ahh, but his arrogance reveals itself. "They" according to him are different. If he can convince us of that, then we can imagine them to be inferior, proclaiming ourselves more enlightened, more benevolent.
Thinking that he himself is more enlightened than the rest of us, Mr. Azel goes into some nonsense about the unifying factor is the hostility of these countries towards the US, once again looking to cause reason to worry. He can't except that Bolivia and Ecuador also don't follow the rules of the Northern giant, so he deduces that they too are under the influence of the Iranian government or Castro (the ultimate vulgarity for a man who works in the University of Miami's Institute of Cuban and Cuban-American Studies).
What this pseudo-intellectual is unwilling to admit is that there is a tremendous popular awakening in Latin America and a wave of elections being won by candidates who aren't anti-American but pro their people. These anti-imperialists are speaking in a way that irks the dominant powers of yesterday who are more likely to try to slander them than respect them. That is why he feels the need to suggest that we fear South-South friendships that run counter to the status quo. He pushes the idea that we should fear them and our foreign policy should be more aggressive, lumping all countries who strive to make their own future free from foreign domination into the sinister camp.
It's time for thoughtfulness to defeat Mr. Azel's and others' arrogance and story telling. Cuba has no history of aggressive actions towards the US. In fact, it has been an victim of over 50 years of aggression and economic warfare by Washington and the extremists in Miami. The rest of the world is aware what kind of dangerous stories are created by extremists in the US. Just look at what our lies led to in Iraq. Mr. Azel is just one more creative mind trying to present to us an alternate reality, one in which we should be fearful of countries taking their own paths, that they threaten our tranquility. His silliness needs to be recognized for what it is, one more story meant to portray revolutionary Cuba as the boogeyman 90 miles away.
You can read Jose Azel's newest addition to Miami's axis of propaganda at :
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/10/2539364/the-tehran-havana-caracas-axis.html
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Azel's Opinion: A Common Tragedy
This is my response to Jose Azel's opinion he titled "Cuba: A Tragedy of Commons". What truly is a tragedy is the fact that the who have tried to inflict the most suffering on the people of Cuba are people who trace their roots to the island. They arrogantly try to impose their own ideas on a people they abandoned long ago.
Is it any wonder that the strongest proponents of the embargo, which has the expressed intention of strangling the Cuban economy, always directly trace the main cause of Cuba's economic woes to actions taken by the Cuban government? As they ignore this fact of the implications of the embargo, although everyone else on earth can clearly see it, do they feel guilt for having such a large hand in the peoples' of Cuba woes? Probably not. They seem to champion all of the amazing results that pre-revolutionary Cuba brought for its citizens.
In spite of all of those fantastic statistics, the people of Cuba welcomed the expulsion of the previous order. Cuba's per capita income may have been fourth in Latin America, but when you average incomes you find it easy to hide the extremes in poverty and wealth. It may cost more of what a Cuban worker earns than a Costa Rican to buy a box of milk, but in spite of that gap, Cuba not Costa Rica has become the only country in Latin America to have eliminated childhood malnutrition. This may be due to the fact that when you factor in all of the expenses that a Costa Rican faces that Cubans don't, perhaps because in Cuba there are more "commons", many Costa Ricans can't afford the milk after all. Yeah, among the "commons" in Cuba are the lack of wage and purchase power, but also are the benefits like health care. Don't think so? Ask Laura Pollan how much see was set back economically for her acute respiratory illness? I'm sure she won't have to file for bankruptcy as so many Americans have to due to unaffordable health care costs right here in the "greatest health care system in the world".
Things were so great in the rest of Latin America that since the Cuban revolution, Washington feared the spread of the "Cuban example". Within the first couple of years, Washington felt it necessary to launch new economic programs for the rest of Latin America. After decades, things have remained bad for so many in Latin America that many countries have elected what we call dictators who are looking for ways to include the people who have historically been forgotten or ignored. Although the Cuban example of an armed revolution isn't being followed, similar aspirations of developing societies where a few big gluttonous bellies don't ignore the hungry ones and hide behind economic averages.
Besides all of the side issues, the one thing that the people who have done everything possible to eliminate the Cuban revolution as well of the intellectuals who can't even find a way to correct the problems of their own countries seem to overlook. It is nobody's place to dictate to Cuba what Cuba has to do. Cuba has the same right to self-determination as any other country should. They may decide to follow the philosophy of Locke, Keyenes, Marx, or Smith. As an expressed enemy of Cuba, the United States isn't even in a position to offer advice. The US will not force Cuba into becoming what the US wants, but if their were at least cordial relations based on respect, the US may be able to offer constructive ideas which would be at least heard. Instead, Washington stubbornly sits from afar offering nothing but slander and insults while squandering any positive possibilities that could be created.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/09/2443885/cuba-a-tragedy-of-the-commons.html#ixzz1aHx3txcc
Is it any wonder that the strongest proponents of the embargo, which has the expressed intention of strangling the Cuban economy, always directly trace the main cause of Cuba's economic woes to actions taken by the Cuban government? As they ignore this fact of the implications of the embargo, although everyone else on earth can clearly see it, do they feel guilt for having such a large hand in the peoples' of Cuba woes? Probably not. They seem to champion all of the amazing results that pre-revolutionary Cuba brought for its citizens.
In spite of all of those fantastic statistics, the people of Cuba welcomed the expulsion of the previous order. Cuba's per capita income may have been fourth in Latin America, but when you average incomes you find it easy to hide the extremes in poverty and wealth. It may cost more of what a Cuban worker earns than a Costa Rican to buy a box of milk, but in spite of that gap, Cuba not Costa Rica has become the only country in Latin America to have eliminated childhood malnutrition. This may be due to the fact that when you factor in all of the expenses that a Costa Rican faces that Cubans don't, perhaps because in Cuba there are more "commons", many Costa Ricans can't afford the milk after all. Yeah, among the "commons" in Cuba are the lack of wage and purchase power, but also are the benefits like health care. Don't think so? Ask Laura Pollan how much see was set back economically for her acute respiratory illness? I'm sure she won't have to file for bankruptcy as so many Americans have to due to unaffordable health care costs right here in the "greatest health care system in the world".
Things were so great in the rest of Latin America that since the Cuban revolution, Washington feared the spread of the "Cuban example". Within the first couple of years, Washington felt it necessary to launch new economic programs for the rest of Latin America. After decades, things have remained bad for so many in Latin America that many countries have elected what we call dictators who are looking for ways to include the people who have historically been forgotten or ignored. Although the Cuban example of an armed revolution isn't being followed, similar aspirations of developing societies where a few big gluttonous bellies don't ignore the hungry ones and hide behind economic averages.
Besides all of the side issues, the one thing that the people who have done everything possible to eliminate the Cuban revolution as well of the intellectuals who can't even find a way to correct the problems of their own countries seem to overlook. It is nobody's place to dictate to Cuba what Cuba has to do. Cuba has the same right to self-determination as any other country should. They may decide to follow the philosophy of Locke, Keyenes, Marx, or Smith. As an expressed enemy of Cuba, the United States isn't even in a position to offer advice. The US will not force Cuba into becoming what the US wants, but if their were at least cordial relations based on respect, the US may be able to offer constructive ideas which would be at least heard. Instead, Washington stubbornly sits from afar offering nothing but slander and insults while squandering any positive possibilities that could be created.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/09/2443885/cuba-a-tragedy-of-the-commons.html#ixzz1aHx3txcc
Monday, September 19, 2011
Carlos Montaner, the Economist?
The "free market", if there ever really was one, offers no answers for anything. The fact that corrupt politicians in so-called democracies, depend on so many contributions from the powerful industries, therefore skewing the Keynesnian ideology, doesn't mean that it isn't better than what ,let's say Milton Friedman proposes. If the working public has to sit around starving while they wait for the market gods to bless the business cycle with an upswing, what happens to them? Free marketeers will say that people will become creative and that is incentive to start a new business. How many people will actually start a new business? Some, but not the majority. The rest just have to imagine that aid will come from the goodness of people who are more fortunate and wait.
I wish that the ex-president you dined with had a name to go with his admitted corruption. I'm sure he was friendly with the governments of the world that partake in the plundering of the public's wealth. When a person is elected and chooses to try and do right for his people, Evo Morales for example, and doesn't go along with the status quo allowing the public's wealth to be syphoned off by the usual suspects, the industrialized world cries foul. Why? Because the most entrenched systematic corruption can be found in the halls of the capitols of Washington and European nations. With all of the power possessed by the hypocritical supporters of the free market system and democracy, They, along with people like you Mr. Montaner, exert a tremendous amount of pressure through economic blackmail and violence to try to ensure that a president who you call a friend can be reinstalled in the place of the honest man.
I'm sure that your "opinion" has more to do with the political drama of the United States than it does with other countries, but your support for regimes that rob from their people flies in the face of any argument you might have in opposition to the Keynesnian ideology. Over the past thirty years the transfer of wealth from workers to the elite, thanks in large part to the trickle down theory made famous by Reagan, has left people in the US in an extremely weak situation. It is long overdue, but the politicians of both political parties have almost abandoned any ideas based on Keynes. Unless of course we want to speak about the highly profitable military industrial complex, which is an unfortunate example that would help prove Keynes theory correct. If only half, if not more of what is spent on an industry that thrives on death and destruction, were to be spent on projects that build instead of destroy, there would be numerous examples to help prove Keynesnian theory much more sound than the hopeful free market religion. When the public's money is invested properly in the economy, it is the first domino in a line of businesses that compliment the original expenditure. It is not hard to comprehend.
The reason that people are tired of government spending is that so much of it is done as favors for powerful contributors. The allocated money is not well planned and often wasted. The people loss faith, not in an economic theory, but in the ability of the elected officials to make rational use of the public's money. People often curl into a sort of survival mentality and would, out of emotional frustration, rather the government stop spending. People are easily tricked into believing things like social security is a wasteful Ponzi scheme by either dishonest politicians playing on their fears.
Why is it that the Social Security fund has enough money that it can be lent to the general budget yet it is the target of fiscal irresponsibility? Wouldn't the general budget, the one from which the actual money is passed to the fat cat contributors be a more logical example of where government waste can be eliminated? If the public had a better understanding of the situation, the demands of the government would be different. But as an extension of the "free market", the corporate media is the main source of information for the rightly disgruntled public. We somehow confuse free press with honest reporting, and although much reporting is honest, it is what is left out of the conversation that causes the lack of an informed public. Of course the corporate media has a an agenda, its own. It needs rating for for advertising dollars and so on and so on. There is no reason for a corporate media to go against its interests and explain the whole situation to the public. The public would react in ways that are likely to chip away at the powers that the giant political donors enjoy, the media conglomerates included.
So once again Mr. Montaner, you use your pulpit to argue against the truth. This time about economic theory instead of the usual misrepresentations and slanders against Cuba, Venezuela, and other nations that won't follow the dictates of the self-proclaimed rulers of the hemisphere.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/19/2415273/keynes-and-corruption.html#ixzz1YS55dF8c
I wish that the ex-president you dined with had a name to go with his admitted corruption. I'm sure he was friendly with the governments of the world that partake in the plundering of the public's wealth. When a person is elected and chooses to try and do right for his people, Evo Morales for example, and doesn't go along with the status quo allowing the public's wealth to be syphoned off by the usual suspects, the industrialized world cries foul. Why? Because the most entrenched systematic corruption can be found in the halls of the capitols of Washington and European nations. With all of the power possessed by the hypocritical supporters of the free market system and democracy, They, along with people like you Mr. Montaner, exert a tremendous amount of pressure through economic blackmail and violence to try to ensure that a president who you call a friend can be reinstalled in the place of the honest man.
I'm sure that your "opinion" has more to do with the political drama of the United States than it does with other countries, but your support for regimes that rob from their people flies in the face of any argument you might have in opposition to the Keynesnian ideology. Over the past thirty years the transfer of wealth from workers to the elite, thanks in large part to the trickle down theory made famous by Reagan, has left people in the US in an extremely weak situation. It is long overdue, but the politicians of both political parties have almost abandoned any ideas based on Keynes. Unless of course we want to speak about the highly profitable military industrial complex, which is an unfortunate example that would help prove Keynes theory correct. If only half, if not more of what is spent on an industry that thrives on death and destruction, were to be spent on projects that build instead of destroy, there would be numerous examples to help prove Keynesnian theory much more sound than the hopeful free market religion. When the public's money is invested properly in the economy, it is the first domino in a line of businesses that compliment the original expenditure. It is not hard to comprehend.
The reason that people are tired of government spending is that so much of it is done as favors for powerful contributors. The allocated money is not well planned and often wasted. The people loss faith, not in an economic theory, but in the ability of the elected officials to make rational use of the public's money. People often curl into a sort of survival mentality and would, out of emotional frustration, rather the government stop spending. People are easily tricked into believing things like social security is a wasteful Ponzi scheme by either dishonest politicians playing on their fears.
Why is it that the Social Security fund has enough money that it can be lent to the general budget yet it is the target of fiscal irresponsibility? Wouldn't the general budget, the one from which the actual money is passed to the fat cat contributors be a more logical example of where government waste can be eliminated? If the public had a better understanding of the situation, the demands of the government would be different. But as an extension of the "free market", the corporate media is the main source of information for the rightly disgruntled public. We somehow confuse free press with honest reporting, and although much reporting is honest, it is what is left out of the conversation that causes the lack of an informed public. Of course the corporate media has a an agenda, its own. It needs rating for for advertising dollars and so on and so on. There is no reason for a corporate media to go against its interests and explain the whole situation to the public. The public would react in ways that are likely to chip away at the powers that the giant political donors enjoy, the media conglomerates included.
So once again Mr. Montaner, you use your pulpit to argue against the truth. This time about economic theory instead of the usual misrepresentations and slanders against Cuba, Venezuela, and other nations that won't follow the dictates of the self-proclaimed rulers of the hemisphere.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/19/2415273/keynes-and-corruption.html#ixzz1YS55dF8c
Friday, September 9, 2011
Ping-Pong with Frank Calzon
This is my response to Frank Calzon's plea to remain ignorant in the Miami Herald.
"Just sending athletes to Cuba to engage in some “Ping-Pong Diplomacy” won’t change Cuba." Your right about that. What will change Cuba, but not in the way you or your cohorts would hope, is the ability to sell goods to the largest consumer market in the world. Ending the embargo and all of the supplemental laws that tighten and expand the policy to other countries will give Cuba an opportunity to grow, something which the US has intentionally tried to prevent for a half century.
You speak of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speaking against segregation in the US. Do you choose to leave out his belief that the US should respect the people of Cuba? Would you call him a communist as others called him back then? Would you try to marginalize him even though the majority of Americans think it is time to change our policies towards Cuba?
Do we know about the increased repression? I certainly know that the US is still openly trying to undermine a sovereign country, Cuba. I certainly know that the video of four women standing for 30 minutes in front of the capitol building in Havana showed a camera man cheering them on almost by himself while others, ordinary Cubans walked by and laughed off the staged spectacle. After thirty minutes the women were taken to the patrol car without violence. I know that the creators of the video and their sponsors were frustrated by the fact that they couldn't provoke a violent response, but in spite of what the video shows, they still try to perpetuate the lie.
"A single glimpse often leads to false conclusions." Right again. Americans should travel to Cuba many times, so that they can see for themselves the disservice the propaganda machine with its Miami headquarters has done by keeping American policy decades behind the rest of the world. Remember, the same press you say was duped into believing the "fresh fruits" trucks in the Soviet Union is the same press that seeks comments from people who meet regularly with the officials of the US Interests Section in Havana and receive compensation for much of their "independent work" on the island. This is the same press that sheepishly allowed the previous US administration lead us into a war in Iraq based on lies by the supposed "good guys."
Those African nations which were aided by the Cuban people in their fights towards independence still remember to publicly appreciate the Cuban people for the support given at a time when the US was on the side of those against their independence. Is that what you call "documented anti-Americanism?" Would you say Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was also anti-American because he called our government "the greatest purveyor of violence?" Would you punish Dr. King's supporters and try to keep them separated from the rest of the world? Some arrogant people believe that not following the imaginary rules that are set in Washington is anti -American. So Washington refuses to respect the sovereignty of Cuba and continues to try to undermine it and punish the Cuban people.
The US is increasingly marginalizing itself in a world that views its policies as being cruel and hypocritical. The "hard-liners" are finding themselves in a weakened position as they try to jockey for the sympathy of the American people and comically attempt to represent the aspirations of the Cuban people who they have intentionally caused to suffer unnecessarily for decades.
Mr.Calzon, the end is near, you feel it, it burns. You and others know full well that you are in a race you can't win and won't. The Cuban people are making their own changes and the longer the hard-liners try to punish them for doing so, the less space their will be for them in Havana and Washington in the future.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/08/2397134/ping-pong-diplomacy-changes-little.html#ixzz1XS9BqCWI
"Just sending athletes to Cuba to engage in some “Ping-Pong Diplomacy” won’t change Cuba." Your right about that. What will change Cuba, but not in the way you or your cohorts would hope, is the ability to sell goods to the largest consumer market in the world. Ending the embargo and all of the supplemental laws that tighten and expand the policy to other countries will give Cuba an opportunity to grow, something which the US has intentionally tried to prevent for a half century.
You speak of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speaking against segregation in the US. Do you choose to leave out his belief that the US should respect the people of Cuba? Would you call him a communist as others called him back then? Would you try to marginalize him even though the majority of Americans think it is time to change our policies towards Cuba?
Do we know about the increased repression? I certainly know that the US is still openly trying to undermine a sovereign country, Cuba. I certainly know that the video of four women standing for 30 minutes in front of the capitol building in Havana showed a camera man cheering them on almost by himself while others, ordinary Cubans walked by and laughed off the staged spectacle. After thirty minutes the women were taken to the patrol car without violence. I know that the creators of the video and their sponsors were frustrated by the fact that they couldn't provoke a violent response, but in spite of what the video shows, they still try to perpetuate the lie.
"A single glimpse often leads to false conclusions." Right again. Americans should travel to Cuba many times, so that they can see for themselves the disservice the propaganda machine with its Miami headquarters has done by keeping American policy decades behind the rest of the world. Remember, the same press you say was duped into believing the "fresh fruits" trucks in the Soviet Union is the same press that seeks comments from people who meet regularly with the officials of the US Interests Section in Havana and receive compensation for much of their "independent work" on the island. This is the same press that sheepishly allowed the previous US administration lead us into a war in Iraq based on lies by the supposed "good guys."
Those African nations which were aided by the Cuban people in their fights towards independence still remember to publicly appreciate the Cuban people for the support given at a time when the US was on the side of those against their independence. Is that what you call "documented anti-Americanism?" Would you say Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was also anti-American because he called our government "the greatest purveyor of violence?" Would you punish Dr. King's supporters and try to keep them separated from the rest of the world? Some arrogant people believe that not following the imaginary rules that are set in Washington is anti -American. So Washington refuses to respect the sovereignty of Cuba and continues to try to undermine it and punish the Cuban people.
The US is increasingly marginalizing itself in a world that views its policies as being cruel and hypocritical. The "hard-liners" are finding themselves in a weakened position as they try to jockey for the sympathy of the American people and comically attempt to represent the aspirations of the Cuban people who they have intentionally caused to suffer unnecessarily for decades.
Mr.Calzon, the end is near, you feel it, it burns. You and others know full well that you are in a race you can't win and won't. The Cuban people are making their own changes and the longer the hard-liners try to punish them for doing so, the less space their will be for them in Havana and Washington in the future.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/08/2397134/ping-pong-diplomacy-changes-little.html#ixzz1XS9BqCWI
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Since the video didn't work.....
The constant attempts in the US media to portray Cuba as a repressive state consistently fall flat. Given the coverage in the media gives to the capitalist countries' harsh responses to their own protesters, always in defense of the government, these attempts to blow out of proportion events in Cuba are amazingly silly.
Given the utter failure of the video of the four women protest that was meant to show the harsh violence of the government, obviously showing the opposite as they were cheered by the cameraman and jeered by the regular people, could this be a set up? Could the media be withholding the video of this event? Are they waiting for many people to explain the probable incredulous nature of this article only to release a video later? If so, then the media should be applauded (at a later date) for their clever chosen release of information.
Are we to believe, once again, the reports of the paid dissidents, whose job is to do just this, create stories for the media? Have these "well-known" dissidents not been provided with the cell phone cameras to catch this on video? What happened to the $20 million Washington just approved? Is it held up in the pockets of the usual suspects in Miami? Tamayo himself said that this story could not be independently confirmed? Strange statement from Tamayo. We are supposed to believe that these "reporters" in Cuba ARE independent (in reality is a stretch)! But of course that, it could be an accidental admission on the part of Tamayo that these guys who send their "reports" to El Nuevo Herald, Radio Marti, and their Miami spokespersons aren't "independent" at all.
Well was an article in the Miami Herald, and Mr. Tamayo is the author, so the headline is enough. Who cares about verifying the story. The foreign press in Havana, as he said, didn't report on this, but we should rest assured that it will get plenty of coverage (for a moment) in Miami.
You can read the article I'm referring to by clicking on the link below.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/29/2380921/dissidents-say-police-used-tear.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1WX7UNv8e
Given the utter failure of the video of the four women protest that was meant to show the harsh violence of the government, obviously showing the opposite as they were cheered by the cameraman and jeered by the regular people, could this be a set up? Could the media be withholding the video of this event? Are they waiting for many people to explain the probable incredulous nature of this article only to release a video later? If so, then the media should be applauded (at a later date) for their clever chosen release of information.
Are we to believe, once again, the reports of the paid dissidents, whose job is to do just this, create stories for the media? Have these "well-known" dissidents not been provided with the cell phone cameras to catch this on video? What happened to the $20 million Washington just approved? Is it held up in the pockets of the usual suspects in Miami? Tamayo himself said that this story could not be independently confirmed? Strange statement from Tamayo. We are supposed to believe that these "reporters" in Cuba ARE independent (in reality is a stretch)! But of course that, it could be an accidental admission on the part of Tamayo that these guys who send their "reports" to El Nuevo Herald, Radio Marti, and their Miami spokespersons aren't "independent" at all.
Well was an article in the Miami Herald, and Mr. Tamayo is the author, so the headline is enough. Who cares about verifying the story. The foreign press in Havana, as he said, didn't report on this, but we should rest assured that it will get plenty of coverage (for a moment) in Miami.
You can read the article I'm referring to by clicking on the link below.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/29/2380921/dissidents-say-police-used-tear.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1WX7UNv8e
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Response to Mauricio Claver-Carone
This is my response to Mauricio Claver-Carone's editorial about the Cuban Adjustment Act in the Miami Herald on Aug. 21, 2011.:
The notion of "trickle down' as it meant in the wikileaks cable being compared to the "trickle down economics" of Reagan is laughable.
If the Act is to be repealed, then so be it. There should be equal treatment for people coming from different countries. Along with the Act, the wet-foot/ dry-foot policy should be eliminated also. It serves no logical reason other than to provide photo-ops used to bolster a phony argument about people trying to escape, and meanwhile we don't care to pretend the same about Hatians (for just one example).
Shamefully, Rivera isn't proposing this amendment based on any attempts at fairness. He simply follows a long history of those in Congress trying to make the Cuban people on the island suffer. This from a man who can't even report his own income correctly, yet expects to be considered "prestigious" by the people and his peers.
If the Act were to be repealed, I would oppose it being applied retroactively, which would show the mean spiritedness of these Miami extremists. Reneging on what the newer arrivals were offered wouldn't be fair and certainly wouldn't be appreciated by them.
The silliness about "sustaining their persecutors" is obvious nonsense and part of the tall tales coming from the usual suspects. Obviously they weren't persecuted as they travel back to the island with no problems whatsoever. That should blow that whole line of thought right out of the water.
Certainly it has become easier to travel and give a "cursory nod" to a relative, but taking a quick look at the lines of people travelling there will be enough to see that the incredible amounts of luggage being taken, doesn't seem like they are "cursory nods" but honest aid for families. Actually, I believe that the people staying at beach resorts often are the ones travelling at the expense of our "democracy programs", handing out a little cash to a few people willing to be employed at the service of the US and using a vacation on the taxpayers' expense as a cover for their nonsense.
Here Mr. Claver-Carone says that Obama's goal was commendable, yet in 2008 said his biggest mistake was allowing Cubans to do so whenever they want. He assumes the role of the judge who decides who and how often people should be able to visit family. It is to be expected from him and others who hide behind the rhetoric of caring for the Cuban people while constantly searching for ways to make Cubans on both sides more miserable.
Some call these people "wicked-minded". It is very possible. At best they are dishonest hypocrites, not at all interested in the Cuban people, while they themselves have made careers off of the situation between the two countries, being everything from lobbyists to politicians to even people who have blown up planes and seek shelter in the bowels of Miami. These are not and never will be the champions of the Cuban people.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/21/2366991/amend-the-cuban-adjustment-act.html#ixzz1Vt2barni
The notion of "trickle down' as it meant in the wikileaks cable being compared to the "trickle down economics" of Reagan is laughable.
If the Act is to be repealed, then so be it. There should be equal treatment for people coming from different countries. Along with the Act, the wet-foot/ dry-foot policy should be eliminated also. It serves no logical reason other than to provide photo-ops used to bolster a phony argument about people trying to escape, and meanwhile we don't care to pretend the same about Hatians (for just one example).
Shamefully, Rivera isn't proposing this amendment based on any attempts at fairness. He simply follows a long history of those in Congress trying to make the Cuban people on the island suffer. This from a man who can't even report his own income correctly, yet expects to be considered "prestigious" by the people and his peers.
If the Act were to be repealed, I would oppose it being applied retroactively, which would show the mean spiritedness of these Miami extremists. Reneging on what the newer arrivals were offered wouldn't be fair and certainly wouldn't be appreciated by them.
The silliness about "sustaining their persecutors" is obvious nonsense and part of the tall tales coming from the usual suspects. Obviously they weren't persecuted as they travel back to the island with no problems whatsoever. That should blow that whole line of thought right out of the water.
Certainly it has become easier to travel and give a "cursory nod" to a relative, but taking a quick look at the lines of people travelling there will be enough to see that the incredible amounts of luggage being taken, doesn't seem like they are "cursory nods" but honest aid for families. Actually, I believe that the people staying at beach resorts often are the ones travelling at the expense of our "democracy programs", handing out a little cash to a few people willing to be employed at the service of the US and using a vacation on the taxpayers' expense as a cover for their nonsense.
Here Mr. Claver-Carone says that Obama's goal was commendable, yet in 2008 said his biggest mistake was allowing Cubans to do so whenever they want. He assumes the role of the judge who decides who and how often people should be able to visit family. It is to be expected from him and others who hide behind the rhetoric of caring for the Cuban people while constantly searching for ways to make Cubans on both sides more miserable.
Some call these people "wicked-minded". It is very possible. At best they are dishonest hypocrites, not at all interested in the Cuban people, while they themselves have made careers off of the situation between the two countries, being everything from lobbyists to politicians to even people who have blown up planes and seek shelter in the bowels of Miami. These are not and never will be the champions of the Cuban people.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/21/2366991/amend-the-cuban-adjustment-act.html#ixzz1Vt2barni
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Miami Herald's Crocodile Tears
There was a recent article in the Miami Herald about a young lady who was denied entry to Cuba to visit her grandmother. It is unfortunate that this young lady isn't able to visit, in this case apparently due to a decision by the Cuban government. What is striking are these crocodile tears shed by the powers of South Florida.
How many people were restricted from travelling to visit sick relatives on the island due to the Bush policy which restricted travel to Cuba once every three years? Along with the three year wait, family was redefined so as only to include parent, child, and sibling. Also done away with were trips for humanitarian purposes.
This young lady in the article, had Obama not expanded the definition of family to include all family, need not have even applied since "grandmother" wasn't included in "family". Ironically, this is the same policy that the editors of the Miami Herald suggested very recently we should go back to.
The proposals of Diaz-Balart, Rivera, and Rubio should be opposed. The unnecessary and spiteful separation of families should be opposed. If we question the decision of the Cuban government on this issue, we should certainly scrutinize the decisions of our own government. We can't affect Cuba's decision, but we are supposed to be able to utilize our "democracy" to make sure that our representatives actually represent us.
Hopefully, the hints at changing the policies in Cuba to something more fitting to today's circumstances are realized. Equally, hopefully the US doesn't choose to move backwards on this same issue. Mr. Lesnick is probably correct, that travel between the two countries will look a lot more like travel between the US and other countries in the hemisphere. To accomplish this, the crazy wet foot dry foot policy will need to either be eliminated or extended to others in this hemisphere. My guess is that there is a lot more political will to eliminate it as opposed to allowing all of the others who come without visas simply for economic reasons like most Cubans
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/14/2359558/many-cubans-living-abroad-cant.html#ixzz1VJtnfyjo
How many people were restricted from travelling to visit sick relatives on the island due to the Bush policy which restricted travel to Cuba once every three years? Along with the three year wait, family was redefined so as only to include parent, child, and sibling. Also done away with were trips for humanitarian purposes.
This young lady in the article, had Obama not expanded the definition of family to include all family, need not have even applied since "grandmother" wasn't included in "family". Ironically, this is the same policy that the editors of the Miami Herald suggested very recently we should go back to.
The proposals of Diaz-Balart, Rivera, and Rubio should be opposed. The unnecessary and spiteful separation of families should be opposed. If we question the decision of the Cuban government on this issue, we should certainly scrutinize the decisions of our own government. We can't affect Cuba's decision, but we are supposed to be able to utilize our "democracy" to make sure that our representatives actually represent us.
Hopefully, the hints at changing the policies in Cuba to something more fitting to today's circumstances are realized. Equally, hopefully the US doesn't choose to move backwards on this same issue. Mr. Lesnick is probably correct, that travel between the two countries will look a lot more like travel between the US and other countries in the hemisphere. To accomplish this, the crazy wet foot dry foot policy will need to either be eliminated or extended to others in this hemisphere. My guess is that there is a lot more political will to eliminate it as opposed to allowing all of the others who come without visas simply for economic reasons like most Cubans
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/14/2359558/many-cubans-living-abroad-cant.html#ixzz1VJtnfyjo
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Mr. Montaner Shoots Blanks
Since Mr. Carlos Montaner decided to use the term "shoot" in his title, I figured that might be an appropriate term to describe his lack of powerful ammunition in his pistol loaded with nonsense, the pistol being his opinion piece in today's Miami Herald. The following is my response to him which is followed by a link to his silliness:
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Jaime Suchlicki's Obvious Arrogance
Jaime Suchlicki added his opinion to the pages of the Miami Herald this morning. It gives people a good picture as to how the anti-Cuba extremists view the United States role in Latin America. It is useful to take note of his outward support for U.S. imperialism and its desires to dominate the region. He openly calls for undermining Venezuela's democracy and sovereignty as he would like to see the U.S. by organizing the opposition to Chavez interfere in Venezuela's upcoming elections. Interestingly though, the U.S. often accuses, although never proves, that Venezuela interferes in the affairs of its neighboring countries. This is amazingly hypocritical. Mr. Suchlicki and many members of the United States government somehow feel that interfering in the internal affairs of other countries is something of a right that the United States , and only the United States has. By suggesting that Venezuela has threatened the interests of the United States, he would only be correct if he means that the interests of the businesses wanting to enter and dominate other countries are synonymous with the interests of the American people. The interests of the American people have been drowned out by corporate power and there is nothing at all that Venezuela threatens as far as the American people are concerned. Actually, if anything at all can be said about Venezuela and the interests of the American people, it would be positive. Venezuela has negotiated with certain parts of the United States discounted heating oil which has made the lives of some Americans easier. In no way has the average American been affected by Venezuela with Chavez as its president.
Mr. Suchlicki's only correct assertion is the fact that Cuba is has more diversified trade than it had at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It would be a blow to Cuba if the relationship with Venezuela would be more to the liking of the U.S., but since Cuba now has positive relations with most Latin American countries, it probably wouldn't be in Venezuela's interest to turn its back on Cuba no matter who would be in the presidency. Venezuelans benefit from the support in medical services as well as educational cooperation.
The inclusion of Iran in his analysis serves no purpose other than to link Chavez with a country to which Americans are supposed to fear thanks to a media campaign that has tried to prepare the minds of Americans for a possible military confrontation that would no doubt be as legitimate as the invasion of Iraq. As we learned afterwards, although it was easy to know before, that most of reasons for the war with Iraq were untrue.
The United States needs to stay out of the affairs of other nations. If it were to have respectful relations with other nations, it would be in a position to give advice without trying to impose its desires on others. The arrogance of the foreign policy of the United States serves no good purpose for the American people, nor does it bring good feelings from around the world for our country.
Link to Jaime Suchlicki's opinion:
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/17/2316559/chavez-cancer-and-cuba-the-implications.html#ixzz1SOIPQKmu
Mr. Suchlicki's only correct assertion is the fact that Cuba is has more diversified trade than it had at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It would be a blow to Cuba if the relationship with Venezuela would be more to the liking of the U.S., but since Cuba now has positive relations with most Latin American countries, it probably wouldn't be in Venezuela's interest to turn its back on Cuba no matter who would be in the presidency. Venezuelans benefit from the support in medical services as well as educational cooperation.
The inclusion of Iran in his analysis serves no purpose other than to link Chavez with a country to which Americans are supposed to fear thanks to a media campaign that has tried to prepare the minds of Americans for a possible military confrontation that would no doubt be as legitimate as the invasion of Iraq. As we learned afterwards, although it was easy to know before, that most of reasons for the war with Iraq were untrue.
The United States needs to stay out of the affairs of other nations. If it were to have respectful relations with other nations, it would be in a position to give advice without trying to impose its desires on others. The arrogance of the foreign policy of the United States serves no good purpose for the American people, nor does it bring good feelings from around the world for our country.
Link to Jaime Suchlicki's opinion:
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/17/2316559/chavez-cancer-and-cuba-the-implications.html#ixzz1SOIPQKmu
Monday, July 11, 2011
Mr. Tamayo's "Do-Over"
A few days ago in the Miami Herald's website, Juan Tamayo wrote an article with the title "Cuban transgender woman says she was fired because her lover is with opposition." Of course like most articles in the Miami Herald, the title alone would make an uninformed reader think that Cuba once again is repressing people. For those people who get their news by reading through titles of articles without ever bothering to go any farther, they would easily form a negative opinion of Cuba. But for those who take the time to read more than just the headlines, they would notice that in the very first line of the article, Mr. Tamayo contradicts the flashy title by writing, "A transgender woman has quit her job at a government-run sex studies center..."
Amazing! How can what Mr. Tamayo writes be considered journalism? Can such blatant trickery be respected? By the sympathizers of the anti-Cuba extremists this would be quite acceptable since they consider lying about Cuba the norm. But to people who respect the idea of actual journalism, this type of thing is nothing short of offensive.
A few people brought up this point in the comments after the article. After a couple of days, magically the same exact article appeared but with a new title which read, "Transgender activist resigns after clash with Castro daughter." Amazing again! What is even more strange is that both exact articles still stand in the same section of the Miami Herald with links to each other. After the false impression was given and left for days without correction the damage was certainly done, at least for those who simply skim the titles.
What made Mr. Tamayo decide to change the title is any one's guess. I would imagine that if not shame for such a blatant lie, embarrassment at the very least is what Mr. Tamayo felt. But who knows. Maybe the Miami Herald couldn't stand to let such an error slide. People must be vigilant and thorough when looking through the news. In this world of "free press" a lot more than just the truth gets by and it is our responsibility to point it out when a situation like this occurs. So probably as a result of scrutiny, Mr. Tamayo was forced to make a "do-over".
Amazing! How can what Mr. Tamayo writes be considered journalism? Can such blatant trickery be respected? By the sympathizers of the anti-Cuba extremists this would be quite acceptable since they consider lying about Cuba the norm. But to people who respect the idea of actual journalism, this type of thing is nothing short of offensive.
A few people brought up this point in the comments after the article. After a couple of days, magically the same exact article appeared but with a new title which read, "Transgender activist resigns after clash with Castro daughter." Amazing again! What is even more strange is that both exact articles still stand in the same section of the Miami Herald with links to each other. After the false impression was given and left for days without correction the damage was certainly done, at least for those who simply skim the titles.
What made Mr. Tamayo decide to change the title is any one's guess. I would imagine that if not shame for such a blatant lie, embarrassment at the very least is what Mr. Tamayo felt. But who knows. Maybe the Miami Herald couldn't stand to let such an error slide. People must be vigilant and thorough when looking through the news. In this world of "free press" a lot more than just the truth gets by and it is our responsibility to point it out when a situation like this occurs. So probably as a result of scrutiny, Mr. Tamayo was forced to make a "do-over".
Saturday, June 11, 2011
The Props For the Show in Miami
Just a few short days ago, the mother of the hunger striker who died last year while serving a prison sentence arrived in Miami with her son's ashes. She shouted "Zapata vive" while holding her son's ashes in a wooden box to the crowd's delight. There was something ironic though about her statement which accused the Castro brothers of "brutally beating her son to death." Was he not a hunger striker? Did he not imagine that he might die? Did he refuse to eat the food given to him by the "Castro brothers"? Maybe she got carried away in the moment while being surrounded by members of the Cuban Democratic Directorate. From Miami, she promises to "relentlessly fight for the Cuban people's right to freedom and democracy which my son so much dreamed of.” She will fight, I imagine, just as the rest of the people in Miami "fight", with a detachment from the true hopes and desires of the people she decided to leave, just as the others in Miami. She now represents nothing more than another voice in the already over the hill part of the "exile" community as its political power within the U.S. is on the decline. These "fighters" have "fought" predominantly with the money of the American people and have managed to do nothing but discredit themselves in the Cuban people's eyes. Their support for the policies which were intended to make Cubans' lives as difficult as possible has forfeited their claim of trying to help. There is nobody on the island who appreciates these efforts and many of the more recent immigrants from Cuba don't support these "exile" leaders' policies either. She has thrown herself onto the side of the most disgusting characters in this unfortunate unfinished story of US-Cuba relations/tensions. This is a side that is being cornered due to the fact that their terrorist tactics, expensive government hand-outs are no longer as popular within the Washington political establishment. Couple that with the fact that many Americans find it offensive that they too are victims of this policy and the oil industry among others are making alot of noise as they are itching to do business with Cuba. She stated that she hopes to one day bring his ashes to rest in Cuba, which she took so much trouble to bring to Miami only to be used as a prop for the extremists in Miami. Really? Rest? Thanks mom.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Jose Azel, Professor of Miami Mythology
Today the Miami Herald blessed us with the view of another of the celebrated theorists from the anti-Cuba crowd, Jose Azel. His expertise have gotten him in the heirarchy of "Cuba Studies" and is a professor at the University of Miami. Why? Well his type of expertise are the kind that is always in demand at the institutions in Miami.
He begins his piece with references to the uprisings in Africa and the Middle East, which have caught the world powers off guard as they struggle with the typical hypocrisy and inconsistencies as they try to deal with the situations. Obvious favoritisms in that part of the world get in the way of being able to form a consistent policy on the part of Washington and Europe. Our media chooses to highlight certain acts of violence carried out by regimes long considered hostile to our interests, while obscuring equal or greater violence being carried out by "friendly" regimes.
Since nothing of the sort has occurred in Cuba, Miami's right wing has been left day dreaming about countless "what ifs". After their high hopes of a similar rebellion in Cuba, they are resigning themselves to the fact that it will not occur. So back to their traditional theories they go as to what the future will hold.
In what Mr. Azer calls a "milestone", the famous in Miami Dr. Biscet, declared that the "dissidents" in Cuba are prepared to negotiate a transition in Cuba. This "milestone" most certainly will turn out to be yet another footnote in the annals of anti-Castro history in the pseudo-reality Miami's right wing lives in.
Describing the "opposition movement" in Cuba as "coming to age" is an example of how out of touch some people are. Many people have spoken to Cubans and have reported that most Cubans aren't in favor of regime change, just the ability to help improve their country's economy in order for all Cubans to live more comfortably. He claims that the Communist Party "has lost its ideological footing." The recent decisions affirmed by their recent congress reflects an evolutrion within the country to better adjust itself to the realities of the world. There is no more communist bloc to organize trade relations separate from the capitalist world, so it is quite obvious to everyone on the island (and it has been for some years) that certain changes in its economy and laws are necessary. As opposed to the suggestion by Mr. Azel, the party is putting itself on more solid ground as it adjusts things more in line with what the citizens of Cuba would like. At the same time, the government is staying true to its ideology of trying to ensure that nobody is left with nothing. By making sure that changes do not occur in a hurried manner, it is being careful not to repeat the disasters that occurred in some post-Soviet societies during the 1990's.
The word "embryonic" chosen by Mr. Azel to describe the "opposition" is quite comical at this point since we are to have supposed that there has been this opposition for 52 years. How long can an embryo exist??!! So much of what is considered as the opposition by the folks in Miami are nothing more than their own creations. The U.S. government working hand in hand with the extremists in Miami have worked long and hard at creating and supporting "dissidents" to no avail. They remain virtual unknowns on the island and serve primarily as propaganda tools for our own consuption through our media. Saying that there are challenges to the methods of government would be true, but the author fails to either realize or mention that these methods are being discussed and debated openly and at times implemented within the existing system. He believes that the answers to Cuba's future can be found in pre-revolutionary Cuba, Talk about being stuck in the past! What should be understood about Cuba before 1959 is that by having such a corrupt and foreign dominated government gave rise to the revolution itself. This is something that the experts in Miami seem to forget. Suggesting a return to such a situation is suggesting that you fail to understand why the revolution even happened. He points out that previously the politics were "personality driven", but by elevating people like Biscet to prominence is nothing different. He is banking on the idea that things will be more diverse if the regime were to disappear. I suspect that part of that diversity would include a large voice at the table for the people in Miami as defacto representatives for Washington's interests as is the case in some of the African and Middle East countries which are experiencing the backlash of not enjoying true independence as Cuba does today.
If Mr. Azel is planning to "chart" the future of Cuba, he needs not do anything but pay attention to what goes on there. Otherwise he will waste alot of paper with the charts he creates, as he continues with the ignorant theories that have long guided the people in Miami.
Please click on the link to the opinion piece if you are interested in understanding how out of touch professor Azel is.
He begins his piece with references to the uprisings in Africa and the Middle East, which have caught the world powers off guard as they struggle with the typical hypocrisy and inconsistencies as they try to deal with the situations. Obvious favoritisms in that part of the world get in the way of being able to form a consistent policy on the part of Washington and Europe. Our media chooses to highlight certain acts of violence carried out by regimes long considered hostile to our interests, while obscuring equal or greater violence being carried out by "friendly" regimes.
Since nothing of the sort has occurred in Cuba, Miami's right wing has been left day dreaming about countless "what ifs". After their high hopes of a similar rebellion in Cuba, they are resigning themselves to the fact that it will not occur. So back to their traditional theories they go as to what the future will hold.
In what Mr. Azer calls a "milestone", the famous in Miami Dr. Biscet, declared that the "dissidents" in Cuba are prepared to negotiate a transition in Cuba. This "milestone" most certainly will turn out to be yet another footnote in the annals of anti-Castro history in the pseudo-reality Miami's right wing lives in.
Describing the "opposition movement" in Cuba as "coming to age" is an example of how out of touch some people are. Many people have spoken to Cubans and have reported that most Cubans aren't in favor of regime change, just the ability to help improve their country's economy in order for all Cubans to live more comfortably. He claims that the Communist Party "has lost its ideological footing." The recent decisions affirmed by their recent congress reflects an evolutrion within the country to better adjust itself to the realities of the world. There is no more communist bloc to organize trade relations separate from the capitalist world, so it is quite obvious to everyone on the island (and it has been for some years) that certain changes in its economy and laws are necessary. As opposed to the suggestion by Mr. Azel, the party is putting itself on more solid ground as it adjusts things more in line with what the citizens of Cuba would like. At the same time, the government is staying true to its ideology of trying to ensure that nobody is left with nothing. By making sure that changes do not occur in a hurried manner, it is being careful not to repeat the disasters that occurred in some post-Soviet societies during the 1990's.
The word "embryonic" chosen by Mr. Azel to describe the "opposition" is quite comical at this point since we are to have supposed that there has been this opposition for 52 years. How long can an embryo exist??!! So much of what is considered as the opposition by the folks in Miami are nothing more than their own creations. The U.S. government working hand in hand with the extremists in Miami have worked long and hard at creating and supporting "dissidents" to no avail. They remain virtual unknowns on the island and serve primarily as propaganda tools for our own consuption through our media. Saying that there are challenges to the methods of government would be true, but the author fails to either realize or mention that these methods are being discussed and debated openly and at times implemented within the existing system. He believes that the answers to Cuba's future can be found in pre-revolutionary Cuba, Talk about being stuck in the past! What should be understood about Cuba before 1959 is that by having such a corrupt and foreign dominated government gave rise to the revolution itself. This is something that the experts in Miami seem to forget. Suggesting a return to such a situation is suggesting that you fail to understand why the revolution even happened. He points out that previously the politics were "personality driven", but by elevating people like Biscet to prominence is nothing different. He is banking on the idea that things will be more diverse if the regime were to disappear. I suspect that part of that diversity would include a large voice at the table for the people in Miami as defacto representatives for Washington's interests as is the case in some of the African and Middle East countries which are experiencing the backlash of not enjoying true independence as Cuba does today.
If Mr. Azel is planning to "chart" the future of Cuba, he needs not do anything but pay attention to what goes on there. Otherwise he will waste alot of paper with the charts he creates, as he continues with the ignorant theories that have long guided the people in Miami.
Please click on the link to the opinion piece if you are interested in understanding how out of touch professor Azel is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
You often pretend to believe in democracy, yet you stood by the people who removed Zelaya from his elected position. You hold meetings in Miami, of course, with people like Lucio Gutierrez, who left office in a helicopter to get asylum in Brazil. Also in attendance was the disgraced former colonel and director of intelligence of the armed forces, Mario Pazmino, who was removed for also working with the CIA. Gustavo Lemus, the man who left Ecuador so not be prosecuted for covering up the murders of two people, was also meeting with your "prestigious" group. Wasn't he one of the people who on the day of the coup that you say "never was" entered the Ecuadorian consulate with sympathizers of the coup?
The director, is he still the director(?), of this silly non-profit is Carlos Sanchez Berzain. Is he not a fugitive from Bolivian justice for his role in the "gas wars", which left 60+ dead and over 500 injured?
Oh Mr. Montaner, I know you have your loyal followers, but surely you must be burning inside knowing that such a group of undesirables has really no credibility outside of the bubble of extremism. This ill-named institute showers praise on such people as Armando Valladares and considers a friend the congresswoman who lobbied for the pardon of the maniac Orlando Bosch.
Groups like these are of no use for the good people of the world, not even the good people who live in Miami.
By claiming that "Gutiérrez is one of the most powerful political choices within the country and
one of the hopes of the democratic recovery for Ecuador", you only confirmed your willful ignorance on the very subject of democracy.
What Pesident Correa shot was not his foot, but a hole in the propagandist machine called the "free press" which has for so many years worked hard at printing half-truths and helped pull the wool over the eyes of so many people, until the day came when it was no longer possible, and the people decided to vote in their own interests to the dismay of the powerful elites who now scream foul in a chorus as they find themselves in a weakened position.