I am often baffled by the level of willingness that many Americans have to find excuses for the actions of the U.S. government. There should be little confusion about the fact that although this country has democratic systems in place, there exists a situation in which many people feel like their voices aren't represented by those who have been elected. We are close to entering the fourth year of Obama's presidency and there has been plenty of disappointment with what he has accomplished, or more appropriately, what he hasn't accomplished.
Back when Bush was still president and the 2008 election was in full swing, Obama was able to take away the Democrat party's nomination from Hillary Clinton's seemingly probable role. This was possible due to the positions each had taken in regards to the war Bush decided to start in Iraq. Hillary Clinton attempted to pretend that her vote to give Bush the power to wage war without Congress giving him the the authority to do so, was done believing that war wasn't necessarily going to be pursued. She supported the war, regardless what she tried to say during the campaign. Obama put himself on the side of the people's sentiment against the war. He was immune to having to defend himself as Hillary tried since it was a vote he never had to cast. It was an easy position for him to take and it impressed more voters. Obama cruised to victory at a time when most people would have chosen almost anyone who seemed to offer a break from the ignorant policies of the Bush administration.
The new president came in appearing as a man who would finally do the people's business instead of working on behalf of the powers that had already become one with both political parties. His bold beginning was to order the closing down of the black hole like torture chamber in occupied Guantanamo Cuba. But hindsight is 20/20. The prison remains, as does the occupation of that part of Cuba.
He then decided to seem like he was going to go farther than anyone else had and create a health care system that was dedicated to allowing health care to be reached by all Americans. But quickly it became obvious that he had no intentions in eliminating the main obstacle to such a system, the insurance companies. We are told by those like the president that we have to do what is possible and although we know that there is no way to defend the fact that this health care system is one designed for profit and since it is so, people are refused necessary care and those who are covered by insurance are often financially ruined by the prices that are unpayable. We are expected to rationalize what we know is wrong. We are supposed to believe that his health care accomplishment, which gives more business, more profits to the very companies that hold people hostage to policies that would be laughable if they were actually a joke and it wasn't such a despicable arrangement, is a major victory for the people.
"Bush's War" quickly became Obama's war and he decided to hide behind "what the generals think" as if his civilian presidency wasn't actually able to tell the generals what was good for the country. We are supposed to imagine that because he campaigned as if he was against the war, we are somehow waging one in a way that it wouldn't have been waged had John McCain won the election. That actually isn't even the point.
The point is that he was elected because people had come to realize that the war was a mistake and the United States shouldn't be there anyway. As if his decisions weren't insulting our intelligence enough, Obama's administration throughout this year had been trying to find ways for the Iraqi government to allow our troops to remain at war in that country beyond the deadline that Bush had set along with his Iraqi counterparts (if they can be truly considered as such). His administration's efforts were unsuccessful. But apparently leaving Iraq according to Bush's timetable (while leaving the largest mercenary force in existence behind) will undoubtedly be presented to us as Obama fulfilling another campaign promise. (That sentence should end with an exclamation point but I feel a period is more suitable since it is so serious of an insult to the Americans who can't stomach being involved in the war any longer and the Iraqis who will continue to suffer from this situation.)
The "change" that so many people had hoped for in 2008 only materialized in rhetorical terms. Obama's administration has sat by and allowed record numbers of Americans to lose their homes thanks to a Wallstreet scheme which was able to be hatched thanks in large part to laws created, or eliminated, during the previous Democrat hero's administration, Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton, the man who is now coordinating relief for the country of Haiti, stood before the unlucky people of that country and said that he felt bad about the results of some policies that he had supported that had caused more harm than good in Haiti. Bill Clinton mastered the art of showing empathy. Maybe one day he will apologize for how almost two years after the earthquake, Jimmy Carter plans on reporting to the U.S. that the only rebuilding he has seen during his visit to Haiti is the rebuilding of mansions for the rich. I guess if we are to follow the line of thought of a certain Christian evangelist we can imagine that this misfortune has something to do with a punishment for voodoo practices.
With protests springing up all over the country, it should be obvious that change hasn't come with the election of Obama. The big shots on Wallstreet have become richer than ever and new poverty statistics show that there exists more poverty than we were previously led to believe. But there is more freedom, no really there is, more freedom of money to influence our politics. Surely that should make up for all of the freedoms that have been twisted and abused during the past decade or so! "Only in America" as Don King, the boxing promoter, or puppet master, likes to say with a smile. Yes, only in America is the incumbent president's goal of raising a billion dollars for a campaign viewed as an admirable record to be proud of.
We can feel good about showing off to the world what our freedom to protest looks like. We see thousands of arrests and veterans being shot at with projectiles as less than embarrassing. We like to talk a good game when we pick and choose which country to lecture about human rights, but I know we are talking to ourselves. When we interfere in the internal affairs of a country in Latin America while claiming that Chavez is doing so without any evidence, we do so because we tell ourselves that we are better, more just.
The people of this country are beginning to realize that the promise of change will not come simply by voting for the politician who makes the beautiful promises that we feel comfortable hearing. People are tired of the silly gimmicks of political campaigners such as Romney's saying that he will eliminate much of the foreign aid that this country pays for. That quite simply wouldn't be likely to happen. Most of what we hear as being foreign aid goes eventually to aiding U.S. corporations operating in foreign countries. The "economic hit man" John Perkins clearly explained the situation of Indonesia. U.S. investment in that country went to build everything necessary for the oil companies to conduct business. The oil has been extracted, billions of dollars were made for the investors, and a few powerful Indonesians became rich too. The vast majority of Indonesians have gained virtually nothing from the natural resources of their country. They have been subjected to Washington backed strong men for decades with no way out. Strong men, dictators, anything we'd like to call them, it doesn't matter. They all are working more for their personal fortunes at their people's expense. It is all just fine with the U.S. since those strong men work in the interests of capital.
The lofty claims about human rights that the U.S. presidents and others officials in the government ring hollow. The U.S. power only finds problems with leaders of countries willing to buck the trend of U.S. dominance. The most clear example is the country of Cuba. Having fought for its independence from Spain, it ended up having to live with a constitution written while under U.S. occupation. After the former colonizer was cut out of the equation, the mighty power to its north took the place of master on the island, retaining the right to intervene militarily when it felt that its interests were threatened.
So it was like this until 1959 when Fidel Castro's revolutionaries with the support of the people took control of the island's destiny. In one of his first visits to the United States, Fidel made it clear that the independent nation of Cuba wasn't looking for handouts from the U.S., only respect. At the same time our government realized that this wasn't an ordinary power grab, but a move to actual independence. From almost the first day and ever since, Washington has tried almost every trick under the sun to erase this independently minded government that has become an example of a country that resists imperialism.
There is no doubt that the lives of the Cuban people have been made more difficult due to the punishment handed out in the form of the embargo, a punishment for choosing independence. But there is no doubt that in many areas thanks to their independence, their lives are better than in most underdeveloped countries that have opted for the path of being a client state. Decades of dictatorships imposed on Latin America by Washington has led to societies that suffer from violence, hunger, homelessness, and exploitation of natural resources by American corporations. Death squads trained by American military specialists have left thousands dead. Attempts at democracy were crushed time and time again by assassinations. kidnappings, and bribery. The people of Latin America over the past few short years have been electing governments which are trying to break the chains that have held back the dreams of the continent for centuries. Never has there been more unity in Latin America than there is at this moment in history. The countries are forming new alliances to develop themselves in ways that will ultimately help their forgotten majorities live better lives.
All of this to me is quite inspiring. Much is made of what we refer to as the "Arab Spring" here in the U.S. But this rejection of puppet dictators began over a decade ago in Latin America with the election of Hugo Chavez. Now the leaders of Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, along with Cuba are working together in harmony. Of course to Washington, this is a disaster. Not all of the leaders are as outspoken as Chavez, who has earned the spot of enemy #1 in our corporate press, but all are implementing programs to help the people who had been left out of the plans of past governments who were happy to follow the orders from the north.
It took a long time for those people to accomplish such a feat. It seems that the American people are showing symptoms of growing tired of governments which work at the service of mighty corporations while making life more difficult for the majority of working people. In cities all across the United States, people are finding ways to at least voice their disappointment with the status quo. We are certainly not bold enough yet to take the chance of voting for a candidate who isn't bought and paid for by the corporations, but if the regular politicians don't find the backbone to go against their wealthy sponsors, eventually a candidate who isn't supposed to win, similar to how Chavez was elected in Venezuela, will be chosen by the people. At that point the country will be able to begin the process of making a society that actually matches the rhetoric that we too often pretend to believe out of convenience.
As much as we like to tell ourselves that we are an example for the world to follow, I think that the world has provided some great examples for us to take note of. It's Shameful that we accept living with the knowledge that we have to choose the lessor of two evils. The people of Latin America have shown us that a better future is possible and the voices that were once drowned out by the powerful can be heard.
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
An Example of Manipulation in the Free Press
This is what I think about the over-hyped media creation of the "dissident" movement in Cuba and how the supposed "free press" chooses to report about it.
This statement by the Church has disappointed the dissidents receiving financial support from the US government and extremists in Miami, but they have to smile and bite their tongues and sound happy about it. They are looking to create the impression that something similar is happening in Cuba to what is happening in the Middle East. What they face is not government repression, although it is possible that sometimes police as anywhere else may be too rough with them. They face a public which, if they even are aware of them, view them as pawns for the US and rightly so.
"The mobs are made up of members of pro-government groups" states the woman who is the spokesperson for the Ladies in White. Does she deny that there are people on the island who support the government? Does she suggest that Cuban people, ordinary Cuban people, who oppose her need the government to organize them to oppose her group? What kind of irrational person believes that the Cuban government doesn't have any support? Populations are easily emotionally charged when they believe that there are people working on behalf of foreign powers to subvert their sovereignty? Even if one chooses to look to Freedom House's reports about Cuba, one would see that their is a good number of people on the island that support and trust the government in Cuba.
“Any other way of looking at Cuba’s reality that could affect peaceful coexistence and break down the nation’s well-being cannot find any support among those of us who have a Christian vision of the world,” the statement from the Church added. “It is not necessary to ask for the church’s opinion,” he said. “It is well known, and we have reiterated it various times, that violence of any kind against defenseless people has no justification.” They are right.
But what these Ladies, and a few men, are looking for is not an opinion. They are looking for a way to further the slander and media manipulation about Cuba. Their group was wisely not mentioned in the Church's statement. As the statement said,“In the past few days journalists have asked for the church’s opinion on incidents in which the wives of some former prisoners . .. had been mistreated, according to their own declarations." Journalists were the ones being offered a response, not the Ladies in White. As Mr. Tamayo points out, the statement was carefully written. The Church officials are certainly no fools and they are intentionally avoiding elevating the stature of this particular group, not out of fear, but out of knowing that it would be irresponsible to perpetuate the notion that they are independent actors.
Nothing will come out of this. Cuba is moving ahead with the reforms that they believe will improve the country. People are finding new ways of employment. People still live in one of the safest countries. Children still go to school then go home and laugh and play. People still have free health care, including the "dissidents" who decide to go on hunger strikes or are allegedly bruised by the authorities or angry neighbors. As much as some people wish to see scenes in Cuba similar to those in Egypt, they will be perpetually disappointed.
Isn't it strange that those who are often quoted in our press are the ones who make regular visits to the Interests Section? Why does that detail always manage to be absent from the articles presented to us? If these people have such fantastic stories, why would that be left out? Do the reporters here like Mr. Tamayo, feel that if that was a known fact by Americans, we too would be as cynical as ordinary Cubans as to their "independence". Of course if our press were to tell us that these people meet with the American diplomats, receiving money, materials, and gifts these people would simply be laughed off as stooges. But our cherished free press is free to report things however it likes even if it isn't the full story. It is quite a disservice to those seeking to learn about things.
"The mobs are made up of members of pro-government groups" states the woman who is the spokesperson for the Ladies in White. Does she deny that there are people on the island who support the government? Does she suggest that Cuban people, ordinary Cuban people, who oppose her need the government to organize them to oppose her group? What kind of irrational person believes that the Cuban government doesn't have any support? Populations are easily emotionally charged when they believe that there are people working on behalf of foreign powers to subvert their sovereignty? Even if one chooses to look to Freedom House's reports about Cuba, one would see that their is a good number of people on the island that support and trust the government in Cuba.
“Any other way of looking at Cuba’s reality that could affect peaceful coexistence and break down the nation’s well-being cannot find any support among those of us who have a Christian vision of the world,” the statement from the Church added. “It is not necessary to ask for the church’s opinion,” he said. “It is well known, and we have reiterated it various times, that violence of any kind against defenseless people has no justification.” They are right.
But what these Ladies, and a few men, are looking for is not an opinion. They are looking for a way to further the slander and media manipulation about Cuba. Their group was wisely not mentioned in the Church's statement. As the statement said,“In the past few days journalists have asked for the church’s opinion on incidents in which the wives of some former prisoners . .. had been mistreated, according to their own declarations." Journalists were the ones being offered a response, not the Ladies in White. As Mr. Tamayo points out, the statement was carefully written. The Church officials are certainly no fools and they are intentionally avoiding elevating the stature of this particular group, not out of fear, but out of knowing that it would be irresponsible to perpetuate the notion that they are independent actors.
Nothing will come out of this. Cuba is moving ahead with the reforms that they believe will improve the country. People are finding new ways of employment. People still live in one of the safest countries. Children still go to school then go home and laugh and play. People still have free health care, including the "dissidents" who decide to go on hunger strikes or are allegedly bruised by the authorities or angry neighbors. As much as some people wish to see scenes in Cuba similar to those in Egypt, they will be perpetually disappointed.
Isn't it strange that those who are often quoted in our press are the ones who make regular visits to the Interests Section? Why does that detail always manage to be absent from the articles presented to us? If these people have such fantastic stories, why would that be left out? Do the reporters here like Mr. Tamayo, feel that if that was a known fact by Americans, we too would be as cynical as ordinary Cubans as to their "independence". Of course if our press were to tell us that these people meet with the American diplomats, receiving money, materials, and gifts these people would simply be laughed off as stooges. But our cherished free press is free to report things however it likes even if it isn't the full story. It is quite a disservice to those seeking to learn about things.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/05/2392024/cuba-denies-targeting-dissidents.html#ixzz1XC9tNaUC
There is another article in the Miami Herald that covers the same topic. In the other article written by Paul Haven, the typical anti-Cuba slant can be seen, but to his credit, he chooses not to use quotes from the "dissidents" and even points out the possibility that they are untruthful. This article is an example of how a reporter can maintain the anti-Cuba idea without stooping as low as Juan Tamayo by quoting obvious lackeys of the US and extremists in Miami. Mr. Tamayo can't find it in himself to report that these women may be phoning false information into "exile" radio and TV stations.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/05/2391522/catholic-church-knocks-abuse-of.html#ixzz1XCCd0BcX
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)