Define Normal, Honestly

So after the seismic announcement changing the counterproductive official policy of the United States towards Cuba, the earth actually didn't crumble (in most places!).  What stubbornly remains in tact is the failure, so far, of the United States to legislatively give up the intention of causing regime change in Havana.  Now given the political opportunity to do so, by which I mean the powerful interest groups coincidentally being lined up with public opinion, I think it very well may be erased.  That certainly wouldn't prevent the powerful actors that aren't always in plain view from continuing their efforts in more discreet ways so what would be the point of being so outright offensive?!

The giant step of official recognition has already been made and it will be etched in stone once each nation has replaced their respective Interests Sections with Embassies.  Much has been made about the counties beginning the process of normalizing relations and rightfully so.  And such a situation would be possible only if each country actually decides to have respect as a foundation of the relationship.  This is the first time that the United States has announced publicly this type of desire so it sort of binds itself to trying.  Given the history of aggression towards the island dating back to its independence from Spain, it seems pretty hard to believe, but we don't have crystal balls.

The US media has perpetuated a particular narrative that goes some thing like this: every time the US has reached out to the Cuban government, the Cuban government has created a situation to prevent mending relations.  Basically we are supposed to be believing that the government of Cuba prefers the blockade, or embargo, remains in place so it has something to blame for its problems.  Actually, if the US media is supposed to be honest and fair, then laziness can be the only reason for telling this story.  It would have been noticed long ago that what the Cuban government blames on US is policy IS the results of US policy. US law does prevent the sale of numerous medical devices to benefit the Cuban people.  US law does prevent the global financial institutions from handling Cuban transactions in a ways that would be considered as remotely usual.  The powerful and very real threat of huge fines keeps institutions from engaging many from even trying.  These are just some examples that would easily prove both that the complaints by Cuban officials have made are legitimate and that they would prefer that the embargo would be eliminated should be believed completely.

The new claim or half-baked question being raised in the media, something that apparently follows the age old story about roadblocks erected by the Cuban government have to do with the speech made by Raul Castro this week at the meeting of CELAC.  He is said to have made demands that would prevent normalization of relations.  What he said was actually exactly what has been said since Cuba has acted independently in 1959, something that hadn't been fully realized since ceasing to be a colony of Spain.  A valid question would be "how much independence was exercised when its constitution was first written under US military occupation?"  And the same question can be posed when considering the treaty that allowed Guantanamo Bay to remain occupied by US military. It doesn't take much thought to realize that those decisions were made to satisfy US interests much more than anything that would benefit Cuba.  There are international laws that can call into question the validity of that treaty as well as certain uses of the Guantanamo base that also may invalidate the agreement.

Should the United States keep occupy another nation's territory, especially if the nation demands that it leaves? Of course not and it it very reasonable for the end of the Guantanamo occupation to be necessary for truly normal relations to exist. But Raul Castro himself stated that working towards that end wouldn't impede the steps being taken currently between the US and Cuban governments. So it shouldn't be seen as a roadblock.  Besides, how would we have to redefine the word normal to coincide with a relationship in which one country continues to try and impose its will on the other?  I'd go as far as saying the largest roadblock to normalization may ultimately be the US attitude which has shown so far to be almost inflexible.

We need to keep these types of things in mind and ask ourselves who and what is reasonable. And we should't compromise language any more than we have and know what normalization should be..  

Turning Pages

Part I.  Some background.

I wasn't alive when Cuba took its first steps towards trying to punish the people of the United States.  That was over 50 years ago.  And looking back at all of those years since you have to wonder what the government of Cuba was thinking. I mean why would so many chances be squandered to start anew with neighbors?  In an earlier time, during secret meetings between the two governments, Cuba showed it recklessness and got involved in a crazy military adventure in Angola, frustrating the South African interventions which were supported by the US!

At least that was happening in Africa.  Previously, Cuba had repeatedly burned parts of Florida's precious agriculture and blown up Miami shopping malls. It was all pretty ugly.  Perhaps the most remarkable incident which will forever stain the consciences of good people was the bombing of a civilian airliner. Those revolutionaries seemed like nasty sons of bitches.  Had they not done everything imaginable by exerting pressure on countries all over the globe, creating the most difficult economic circumstances for our nation, who knows what our potential could have achieved? Perhaps we would't see poverty in our land of boundless opportunities.  

President Obama has obviously succumbed to the pressures.  Just a few weeks ago we saw people here arrested while protesting against police brutality and black and brown people have been joined by whites in demanding justice. Luckily our protesters don't serve lengthy prison sentences but they do get taken in and processed by authorities for wanting fairness. From the outside of our borders it probably looks like an untenable situation.

Part II. All jokes aside, 

Better late than never.   Wednesday morning was nothing less than shocking.  The announcement of the remaining three Cubans who were convicted in Miami and imprisoned for sixteen years were going home as was Alan Gross, the America imprisoned in Cuba. But what was announced by President Obama moments later was more incredible.  He had spoken the night before with Cuba's President Raul Castro and the countries were going to begin normalizing relations! Pretty much most of what the US president could do on his own in regards to reversing the insane and wicked policy that has been in place will be done. 

Immediately the usual characters began screaming.  They are searching for obstacles to place in the way of progress but having to explain why their position makes even a shred of sense will prove impossible. The worn thread that held their disproportionate power over the policy towards Cuba has finally been cut.  By President Obama stating out loud, publicly, and in an address to the nation that the 50 plus year old policy was a failure, means only fools would propose more of the same. And I can assure you that the fools will try.

I think that most people are sober enough to understand that the goals of the policy remain and haven't been actually abandoned.  At the same time since people are fully aware of this, it becomes much more unlikely to be accomplished.  It is what it is.

But that doesn't take anything away from the emotion that people felt and will feel for a while, the smiles, and tears.  I still find it difficult to wrap my head around it.  Although everyone knew it was something that had to happen, happening Wednesday was a complete surprise.  Nobody knows what the next chapters will bring but the page has been turned.  Perhaps the next chapters will be written by people who have grown tired of the sad novel with too many pages. Too many years were lost, too much heartache thanks to that awful thing.  Actually, maybe the page wasn't turned.  I think after Obama read the words "The End", we've actually reached for an entirely different book.  I think this one will be a much better read.

   

From Shaking Hands to Shaking the Past

Coverage of the passing of the South African revolutionary, Nelson Mandela, filled the airwaves this past week.  But at his memorial, a handshake between Presidents Obama and Castro caused another news flurry which almost competed for space in the press.

Now at a high profile memorial service being broadcast worldwide, it would make sense that etiquette and common courtesy would be the main reason for this Obama/Castro handshake.  It really shouldn't be a controversial situation and despite the inflammatory rhetoric of folks like John McCain, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and company.  One-time Cuban exile Marco Rubio (who never really was an exile) went as far as saying that he would have taken the opportunity to pose idiotic questions to Raul Castro had he found himself in that situation.  I find that hard to believe that he would ever find himself in that situation and if he ever was in the presence of a true revolutionary, given the amount of water Rubio is known to drink, he would probably piss in his pants.

I don't think that as some of the right-wing has suggested that the handshake was a propaganda coup by Cuba.  If there is any coup it would be one against the folks who tremble at the idea of engagement between Cuba and the United States.  To me, the handshake was a mere diplomatic courtesy and not much else.

But if we put the handshake in the context of the President's recent statements about needing to find a more logical way of dealing with the Cuba issue, it could be in essence a metaphorical doorway.  Obama finds himself standing at the doorway of a neighbor who has invited him over for coffee but the past frictions make him unsure if he should knock or turn and walk away.  He has the invitation, he would have support, and if he were to strike up a conversation with the neighbor he would likely find out that all those fears that kept him away for so long were unjustified.

A lot depends on what the Presidents decides to do at the doorway.  Separated people would begin to reconnect, even more than they are already.  The sugar that one neighbor could ask the other for could be shared and conversely the other neighbor could use the other's tools to help repair his house.  The neighbors could cooperate in ways they haven't in decades. 

Not to mention that the same fears that have prevented any polite conversations in the past could be confronted to easily bring home an elderly American to his family and four Cubans home to theirs.

By pure chance so much weight has been placed on this handshake when it was never probably meant to be anything more than a courteous gesture at a memorial service for a giant of world history.  An unexpected occurrence can sometimes be among the most meaningful. Or opportunities can be squandered.

President Obama, have the coffee.  Go inside.  Both neighbors have a lot of catching up to do.

A Twofer- Answering Jaime Suchlicki and the Miami Herald

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Representatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

To My President

Mr. President,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your time,

Jimmy C

Obama Inspired Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, Thanks for the Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jimmy C

Dear President Obama

                                                                                                                   January 30, 2011

Dear President Obama,

As usual, the state of Florida is expected to have another close election. I'm sure that although you "aren't paying attention" to the GOP primary, behind the scenes you must be getting a few good laughs in. It may be obvious to some people that the GOP finds itself trapped by not only appearing to be the party that puts ordinary people second to business interests, but by having to appeal to a part of the population that is the least informed and also the most selfish people in our country. Your party traditionally stood for things that were more progressive. Although that was the tradition of the Democrat Party, recent times have shown that this party too is extremely cozy with some of the same interests as the GOP. The lack of enthusiasm for your presidency can be explained by the hopes that were in many ways dashed by what your administration has done, or not done. I won't trouble you anymore with that kind of political analysis, I'm sure that you have plenty of professionals who can tell you the same types of observations.

What I'm interested in providing you is a perspective on how you may be able to make inroads in my state, Florida. As you are aware, Rep. Castor is not like the representatives that are around in South Florida. She also stands out when compared to your party Chairwoman. She has taken a bold stance supporting a new type of relationship with Cuba. She has been able to do so comfortably because in this area people are able to see through the stale rhetoric that permeates the South Florida air. For many years, the business community in the Tampa Bay area has been interested in forging a relationship with Cuba. If you have been paying attention, you already know that Tampa's City Council sent a friendly letter to Cuba, and was able to do so over the objections of one councilman who unfortunately is tied to the past. Since your administration gave the OK for direct flights from Tampa, there have already been new flights added to the schedule at TIA. There is much enthusiasm for travel to Cuba and the increase in the number of arrivals from the US shows that.

Recently, the Senator from your home state traveled to the island and stated called for more constructive engagement between the two countries. You can choose to ignore that the Cuban government has also expressed its willingness to engage with your administration, but by doing so you are showing a lack of incentive, a lack of desire to take the bold steps that people believed and hope that you are capable of. We can have the issue of Alan Gross remain as a stumbling block, or there can be an honest effort by your administration to find a solution to this problem.

I understand that the thought of driving the hard liners wild and giving them a talking point during a campaign year may be a bit unsettling for a candidate. But I believe with all of my heart that they are a lot louder than they are effective. The winds of change, both here and on the island are making the hard liner position marginalized. There have never been such displays of division within their own districts as when their representatives attempted to limit their abilities to visit their families. It is clear that the hard line position is weakened and now may be a better time than ever to completely marginalize it.

Many of the people that take a tough stance on Cuba, and in my humble opinion an incorrect one, will never support you. They have dismissed your party since the era of President Kennedy and I see pandering to them as futile. Perhaps pandering is too strong of a word, so I would suggest appealing to the people who would prefer a future which differs from the unfortunate past which has been hurtful for too many people on all sides. Changing the indefensible policy towards Cuba will happen. The question is when and who will be the president who shows the courage to take that step.

I feel that you are the one president, the one person who has it in you to take that step. What better time than now, or when the bumbling GOP figures out which candidate will challenge you. Putting them on the defensive on an issue such as this perpetual political football, would show the kind of courage that so many Americans once dreamed that you were capable of showing. Let your opponents spin in circles trying to defend a policy that almost everyone agrees is outdated and has proven to be incapable of achieving its goals. Whether an American is supportive of Cuba's right to determine its own path or just can't figure out why Vietnam is a trading partner and Cuba isn't, it is becoming openly criticized by people of all political stripes as a bad policy.

No longer should it be considered political expedience to treat Cuba as some sort of terrible enemy. In many news outlets, on many occasions, the hypocrisy of the policy is talked about. I understand the twisted politics of this issue and I'm trying to show a way that it can become untwisted. How would it feel to have Republicans in the House and Senate wind up supporting you on this issue during a campaign year? They would either have to change their positions and look like they are more concerned about party politics or just simply admit that the Democrat candidate is correct on at least this issue. How many farmers in "red" states may be very satisfied with open trade with Cuba? I'm sure there are enough to cause a bit of uncertainty for the GOP. How about the oil industry which is usually a Republican leaning constituency? They are aware that our policy is the major obstacle to their participation in oil exploration in Cuban waters. Even environmentalists would be a bit more comfortable knowing that the two countries would be working on plans together in the case of an accident. You could make a campaign stop in Key West, whose representative is so stubbornly irrational on this issue, and upstage her by explaining that it is beneficial to do more than just threaten foreign oil companies, and cooperation in this area would provide more protection for their beautiful islands and livelihood. The Tampa Bay area would be yours. You would like make inroads for the Democrat party within the South Florida Cuban community.

This is not necessarily a plea to your humanitarian side, but a fundamental explanation of how a bold political strategy may help you. But of course, there are many humanitarian reasons to do away with this poilicy. Your campaign can consider this a political tool and have a drasticly positive humanitarian effect as a result.

Please take all of this in to consideration and perhaps you will go down in our history books as one of the better presidents we've had.

Sincerely,

Jimmy C

A Tampa resident

Florida's 21st District's Representative Is Shameful

   Hialeah.  The home of international fugitive terrorist Luis Posada.  Hialeah.  The city awarded the keys to the city to this terrorist.  Hialeah.  Is it any wonder that Mario Diaz-Balart is its representative in the House of Representatives?   Hialeah.  Florida's 21st district.

   As nearly the entire world has recognized, the U.S. embargo against Cuba should end.  Long after the end of the Cold War, over a decade after the attempted kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez, tensions remain between the two countries.  It really isn't necessary, Cuba has reiterated its willingness to have discussions with the United States.  But the prerequisite Cuba places is too much for Washington to accept at this time.  What is Cuba's prerequisite? To be treated respectfully.

   Cuba isn't alone in its insistence of a prerequisite for talks.  The U.S. believes that it has some sort of moral authority to decide if Cuba has met the artificial requirements that the U.S. has decided to place as conditions to holding talks.  It's pure arrogance on the part of my country, the United States. 

   History's irony has landed Mario Diaz-Balart in the position of U.S. Representative for the 21st District of Florida.  He is the congressman with the most direct ties to the Batista regime which was removed by the triumph of the Cuban revolution.  His father worked directly for Fulgencio Batista and obviously couldn't accept the revolution that removed his ruling circle.  But the most ironic historical fact is that Mario's aunt had been married to Fidel himself and with him, had a child, Mario's cousin.

   Opinions of Cubans living in the U.S. are drasticly different than they were a few decades ago.  Cubans living here are now very interested in maintaining family ties with relatives on the island.  Many are apolitical or are just plain tired of  the politics of the past.  Diaz-Balart couldn't care less.  His personal frustrations about Cuba's independence trump the desires of much of the public he is supposed to represent.  He has refused to speak with constituents who oppose his policies choosing instead to be sure that people like the old terrorist Posada Carriles, who have spent much of their lives dedicated to policies that are meant to cause suffering, can smile to each other even though their circle is getting smaller and weaker as the days pass.

   His personal ambitions of impressing to most extremist elements in South Florida outweigh the respect of family that his own political party like to tout (although it is just a lot of political posturing).  His most recent claim to fame is the fact that he is attempting to turn back the laws regarding travel to where they were during the infinitely terrible Bush presidency.  His proposal is to prevent people from traveling to the island more than once every three years.  Of course in the twisted logic of an anti-Cuba politician, this proposal is supposedly for the good of the Cuban people. 

   Candidate Obama made a lot of promises.  To me, the most easy to accomplish of all was his promise to eliminate restrictions on travel for people with relatives on the island.  This opinion was so popular that he was able to receive applause while speaking to the Cuban American National Foundation during the campaign.  The Bush policy was extremely upsetting to many and a change was more than welcomed.  Now if Mario Diaz-Balart's  proposal makes its way through all of the wrangling in Congress, it will be up to President Obama to stand by his word and veto this madness.  Will he?  Will this provision even make it that far?  That is to be seen.  But either way, the President must realize that allowing this kind of thing to make its way into law will be an insult to the idea of family, a defeat for justice. 

   It is to be expected that Hialeah's representative stands for destructive, counterproductive policy.  It is expected that a son of the Batista dictatorship has no regard for the Cuban people, neither those one the island nor those he is supposed to represent.  Congressman Jose Serrano from the Bronx represents the immigrants from Cuba better than Mario Diaz-Balart.  What a shame that such a man, such a hateful ideology still seems to find a way to cause so much hurt. 

   Let"s find a replacement for the folks like Diaz-Balart in 2012.  Let's move towards the future in a way that avoids the obvious mistakes of the past.  Let's respect our fellow nations and let us truly respect the idea of family.  Throw away this hurtful provision and go further.  End the travel ban on Americans to Cuba and the entire embargo.  Let's not let the small man from Florida's 21st district destroy the only positive pieces to the puzzle of U.S.-Cuba relations.

Has Obama Heard of Freedom House?

   Recently, President Obama said to the press that " we've got to see significant changes from the Cuban government and we just have not seen that yet.”.  At the time that he said that, the Sixth Party Congress in Cuba had already announced the most drastic alterations to the country's structure since the 1960's.  President Obama was being willfully ignorant of that fact.

   Now, just a few days ago Freedom House, the "independent" group which receives funding from the U.S. government that Obama supports and signs off on, released a new report on findings of a survey it conducted in Cuba.  Freedom House found that 79% of the respondents have indeed noticed changes in the country over the last six months and 63% have favorable views of the reforms. 

   Now I;m not a supporter of the U.S. government spending millions of dollars every year on ways to subvert Cuba's sovereignty.  Nor do I believe that the United States has any right to determine how Cuba decides to do things, or any other country for that matter.  What I do find curious is that how can the president be taken seriously about not noticing any changes when the reports he decides to sponsor with our tax dollars clearly show a disconnect between what he sees and what is really happening?  He shouldn't be taken seriously at all. 

   Could it be that Freedom House is just unable to conduct a thorough survey?  If that is the case then surely they won't be expected to continue their work on behalf of the U.S. government.  Maybe the busy president is aware of Freedom House.  Maybe he hasn't heard of the surveys they conduct in Cuba!

   Freedom House summarized the general sense among Cubans as having adopted a more favorable perception of the situation on the island and as having a stronger sense of progress, and a positive feeling about what the new reforms may bring.  All of this positivity and Cuba still suffers from the most far reaching economic embargo imposed on it by the United States.  Imagine the positivity that they would feel if the United States would end it's embargo, stop trying to undermine its society, and treat Cuba with respect. 

   What is amazing about Obama's strange ability to see things is his ability to  distinguish differences between certain countries in the world.  He sees differences that escape the average person's sight.  For example, he's able to see positive steps by the leader of Yemen, whose people are demanding his resignation.  He even saw that an arms sale to that country at a time when protesters were being killed in the streets with military equipment similar, if not the same, as the kind that was to be sold to that government.  He somehow was able to see that the death of a Libyan protester was more offensive to humanity that a protester in Yemen.  He is able to see what the average person can't when he looks at the repression of the protesters in Chile but complains about the "Ladies in White" are booed and yelled at by fellow Cubans who don't particularly care for them working with the officials at the U.S. Interests Section. 

   President Obama, isn't it time to start looking at things in a genuine way?  Isn't it time to admit that the policy, the embargo against Cuba is wrong?  Isn't it time for a president to lead in a way that demands respect by respecting reality?  All of this nonsense is sickening.  Really.  Ask yourself why you feel that it is OK to let dozens of Cuban children who would benefit from a cardiac plug manufactured in the U.S. called an Amplatzer septal occluder that they can't have it because you believe that you should be the judge of Cuba.  Your stance is disgraceful.  You can see it, if you care to try.

   President Obama, after enduring eight years of a president who lacked the ability to speak clearly, you were a breath of fresh air.  I have no criticisms for your ability to give speeches.  In a bubble, they would be uplifting even.  But unfortunately, most people aren't living in a bubble.  Your eloquence is meaningless without your willingness to actually support the things that so many politicians pretend to stand for. 

  

Fifty Plus Years And Feet Still Drag On The Way To The Inevitable

   Washington is still drags its feet when it comes to forming a rational policy towards
Cuba.  I think the situation is beyond delusion. There may be a few deluded people
around still, but senility is probably more appropriate of a description if they
hold on to their beliefs from five decades ago.

   After 50 years of Washington's inability to impose its will on Cuba, punishment
can be the only logical explanation for maintaining its policy. It attempts to
delude the public with its silly proclamations from time to time, such as
Obama's recent comments, and with the help of a press that is predominantly
sympathetic towards whatever Washington's foreign policy might be.

   Washington finds it much easier to stick with the status quo than to challenge
it. What Washington needs to find is a way to reverse itself, or at least begin
to, while saving face since it isn't admitting its errors.

   It would love to find a way to get Alan Gross released since it would be
presented as a win for Washington, but for the moment his imprisonment makes a good
talking point for the politicians. Doing anything during a campaign year is
almost impossible because it could easily be twisted into being perceived as a
weakness even though for Mr. Gross and his family it would be a fantastic
conclusion.

   As for all of the attempts to prevent progress on the issue by the usual suspects
in congress, Diaz-Balart, Ros-Lehtenin and co., all of it was quite predictable and
although it can be worrisome, time itself is running against them and they know it
so they scream more loudly.

   Alleviating suffering never seems to be very high on the to-do list in
Washington so appealing to our politicians' emotions won't get anyone anywhere.
The voters in Florida for the most part can't be described as left of center.
This has become a very right wing state over the past decade or so, and I don't
see that there is any difference particular to the registered voters of Cuban
descent.

   Unfortunately, many of the people who would like to see a change in policy
within the Cuban community aren't yet registered to vote and many haven't yet
become citizens. If they would like to outnumber those who control the Cuba
issue, they really need to do so or they will likely just have to wait for the
business lobbies to convince the politicians that things must change.

   The oil industry is one that I'm sure will be exerting more pressure than anyone
else at this point even going as far as to ask for a special exception for
itself, which may be a possibility. But even if such a corrupt exception is
ultimately granted, it would signal the beginning of a sure end in our horrible
embargo.

   Along with that exception, others must be found so as not to look like they are
just caving in to the demands of Big Oil. Possibly an end on travel
restrictions for all Americans after the 2012 election and a solution to the
Alan Gross issue would lead to the overdue removal of Cuba from the list of
terror sponsoring countries. After those steps it would be possible for the
entire embargo to be dismantled.

   Through it all the anti-Cuba crowd would throw a fit, but they would
be powerless to do anything at all. Perhaps Radio Marti would continue with a
few "democracy programs" if only to throw them a bone, but not much else.

   Of course the US would still find it hard to accept a Cuba outside of its
control, but it would at least be able to satisfy the desires of businesses that
would like to just profit in a market that has always been off limits.

   But still for now, the feet in Washington just drag on.

Rationality Pauses For Campaign Season

   The 2012 campaign season has begun.  Not that campaign seasons ever truly end in the U.S., but now there are actually faces to be on TV that declare themselves as candidates.  Along comes the customary promises that almost never will be fulfilled and soon will follow the bombardment of political ads that make television more unbearable than it already is.  And let's not forget the likelihood of over a billion dollars hiding under the irrational farce of being considered free speech.

   Politicians, almost all, from the aspiring representative all the way up to the sitting president are carving out positions on issues that they consider to be safe so as not to run the risk of losing ground in the polls.  So much is needed to be done yet for the next year it is unlikely that any politician is willing to do more than talk about what they will do instead of actually doing it.

   For fifty years the government in Washington has spun itself into a web of lunacy in international relations.  The Cold War, post-Soviet Union, the War on Terror, whatever the situation, Washington finds itself creating relationships and avoiding others becoming more hypocritical and inconsistent by the year.  In spite of all of the nice proclamations that are meant to appeal to the hearts of people, the policies of forceful domination remains a constant.  And when domination isn't possible, Washington becomes even more irrational. 

   The 18th congressional district is represented in Washington by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.  Her claim to fame is her infamous irrationality in influencing U.S. policy towards Cuba.  The U.S. has been unable to join the rest of the world in realizing that Cuba is not willing to submit to the demands of others, as no country should, and forsake its own people's interests for the greed and dominance that Washington would like to impose on the world.  Washington can't say with a straight face that Cuba is a threat or a sponsor of terrorism.  Washington can't claim that it is truly concerned with human rights as it has such a rich history of supporting repression if its interests are served.  So why is the U.S. so stubborn when it comes to Cuba?  Cuba has achieved great feats in comparison with many other nations when it comes to health, education, and international cooperation.  All this means nothing to Washington as it continues to ignore anything positive on the island, choosing instead to invent things that can be used to justify its stance.

    There are two issues that have gained a lot of news coverage recently in regards to Cuba-U.S. relations.  One being the imprisonment of Alan Gross which can only be resolved by rational respectful actions on the part of the United States.  Alan Gross was in Cuba, breaking Cuban law, and doing so as part of a U.S. government program meant to destabilize the country.  Cuba is well within its rights to allow Mr. Gross to remain in Cuba for the full 15 years.  If Cuba decides to release him, it can do so too, but why would it at this point given the refusal of Washington to even attempt to negotiate something?

   The other issue is the oil drilling that will begin soon of the coast of Cuba.  Years back, Cuba stated that U.S. oil companies would be welcome to participate in the venture.  Because of the embargo, U.S. companies are forbidden from doing business there.  Do we think that the oil companies don't want a piece of the action?!  Of course they do.  But I'm not here to cry about the U.S. oil industry not being able to make more money than they already have.  But I do wonder what the people of Ileana Ros-Lehtenin's district must be thinking as she leads the charge in preventing any cooperation in the event of an oil spill that could destroy the livelihood of much of her district.  Instead of acting responsibly, she attacks and threatens the companies that will be working with Cuba.  A bi-partisan letter, by a group of congressmen that depends on donations from the old guard extremists in Miami, was sent  to the Spanish company that will be drilling in the attempt to scare them from violating pending legislation.  Pending legislation!  Since when was pending legislation law?  As quickly as the letter was received it was dismissed.  The Spanish company has surely done its homework and will be careful not to violate the hopelessly spiteful embargo.

   Surely Ros-Lehtenin is worried.  Surely she screams louder since she is aware that the majority of Americans , including Cubans living in the U.S., are tired of this situation that has lasted for over five decades.  She has nothing to offer but disgruntled proclamations against Cuba.  She is doing nothing except try to prevent any logical cooperation in the event of an oil spill.  This nonsense is enough though for her.  She will continue to be funded by the dinosaurs in Miami whose wish of controlling Cuba never dies.  She need not sound or act rational, for if she did she would be betraying the only issue she is infamous for.  Besides, it's campaign season, and the president is unlikely to do anything to change the status quo of the embargo.  He too is jockeying for money and support from some of the same people, although he does so at the risk of alienating those who thought that he was smarter than that.

   Ileana can sleep well for the moment, but she will soon be quite distraught when after the election season the oil industry and others will be able to pressure Washington just enough to start the crumbling of the house of cards that the embargo is held up by.  The issue of Mr. Gross will have a chance of being  genuinely attended to and other aspects of the embargo will loosen as well.  The United States is capable of doing the right thing, it just unfortunately takes a while for it to do so.  We will get a chance to witness Ileana screaming and kicking while the world ignores her nonsensical rhetoric and she looses the only issue that has kept her career in the spotlight.  When that time comes, she will see how quickly her relevance vanishes and the Cuban and American people can be friends and respect each other, learning from each other and sharing in this thing we all share, life.

Bill's Blunder

   The press had been heavily speculating on Bill Richardson's trip to Cuba and the possibility of him pulling off the unlikely, returning with Alan Gross.  If Mr. Gross is actually a bargaining chip, as the media portrays him, then Cuba has no reason to release him at this time. Has the US offered anything?  In fact, President Obama just renwed the embargo against Cuba. Also, just as Mr. Richarson sat and waited in Havana, the US announced that Rene Gonzalez, one of the Cuban 5 who is scheduled to be released in October, will be expected to serve three years of probation in South Florida for no other reason than to be spiteful.  The irony is that he will not be able to be around any known terrorists.  If he is to serve those years of probation in Miami, the he will more than likely be somewhere near to Luis Posada Carriles, hero of the Miami mafia, and the most notorious terrorist in our hemisphere.  I suppose Rene Gonzalez may need to call ahead to make sure that Posada isn't eating in one of the Miami restaurants before he decides to patronize the place!

   Bill Richardson, who according to his representatives, was invited to Cuba, certainly had in his mind that he would at the very least get to visit Mr. Gross during his time in Cuba.  He was tight lipped in the beginning of his trip, but soon turned to the tactic of trying to pressure Cuba into allowing a visit by making statements to the press referring to Mr. Gross as a "hostage."  Also Mr. Richardson decided to announce that he wouldn't leave the island until his demand was met.  Bill's blunder was to assume arrogantly that Cuban officials would buckle to his attempts to pressure them.  He had to be reminded and explained that Cuba is a sovereign country and is not willing to meet the demands of an attempted blackmail.  So he left without Mr. Gross and even without a chance to visit him.

   Countless US officials over the decades have repeated the mistake of not treating Cuba with respect.  If there is to be any progress at all in creating a new atmosphere for dialogue between the two countries, the US must understand that Cuba is an equally sovereign nation.  It is a non-starter to treat Cuba as a lesser nation than the US.  Washington may be able to get away with this type of attitude with countries that have governments that are heavily dependent on the folks in Washington, but Cuba isn't one of them.  Cuba's independence is total.  It would certainly like to have a better relationship with the northern neighbor, but it is only willing to do so as a respected nation.  If the people in Washington still, after five decades, haven't figured this out, then it is their own problem to work out.  Cuba would benefit from bilateral trade and so would the US.  But Cuba has been able to create a descent society which protects individuals in ways that many others haven't, without a relationship with the US.

   Until Washington is willing to respect Cuba, the relationship will not progress much.  Sooner or later though, someone will come along and decide to do the right thing.  It may come from a person with principle or it may be forced upon the leadership in Washington by the business community that is currently sidelined but is itching to become a part of the international community already enjoying doing business with Cuba.

   A change in US attitude is much needed.

An Example For the World

   Bringing up the dirty aspects of the Bush administration often brings cries about old news.  In the sense that he is no longer the president it is.  But the unfinished legacy of war which he started goes on until this day so it isn't is still quite current.  The Obama administration decided to proceed with the policy of war in Iraq and Afganistan and lives are still being lost needlessly on both sides.  The legacy of death and destruction carries on with no foreseeable end. 
   Dick Cheney, who spearheaded candidate Bush's search for a running mate and found himself, was one of the most detestable figures in the crowd of many who worked in the Bush administration.  He has always been one of the most extremely cold actors who supported the most extreme policies that have earned the scorn of almost the entire world.  Unflinching in his forceful defiance of what is good and rational, he has no qualms about going on TV and speaking arrogantly about his support and direction of  actions that defy the collective conscience of humanity.
  He steps on the feet of former administration officials in the same arrogant manner that he stepped on the worries of the American people.  He says that he would do the same things that he did during his time as vice-president all over again if given the chance.  In his mind, he sees no wrong in torture, lying to the world to justify war, or maintaining secret prisons.  He leaves no apologies, none. 
   Knowing that he hadn't in the past cared too much for the truth, there is reason enough to wonder if what he has included in his new book is itself honest.  Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, has already stated that the tales told by Cheney about his involvement in Powell's departure from the administration are not even remotely accurate.  Wilkerson describes Cheney's assertion that he himself had something to do with Powell leaving as "utter nonsense."  He says that from the beginning, Powell informed his inner team of his intentions of only serving one term.  Powell, in spite of the terrible mistakes he allowed himself to become a part of, suggested that the former vice-president & co. hadn't planned for anything after the fall of Bagdad.  This unnecessary tragedy should not have happened in the first place, but to think that they hadn't even planned enough to prepare for what they were causing is something that only made the situation worse.  It is scary thinking that such madmen were in control of the mightiest military machine the world has ever known. 
   Even former president Bush claims to have had sickening feelings upon learning that weapons of mass destruction weren't found in Iraq.  It is hard to fathom that he honestly didn't know this was the case beforehand, but at least he has the sense to recognize the disappointment of so many people who supported the war based on that very rationale.  Cheney though, still maintains that the United States did the right thing.  This delusional, arrogant man, according to Wilkerson is "the only person Cheney does not seem to find fault with is Cheney." 
   Isn't it time yet for this man, this cruel individual to be brought before the courts along with his cohorts?  Isn't it time for the good people of the United States to demand that he faces justice?  How long can these types of individuals be protected under the excuse that it is time to look to the future?  How can the United States pretend to want to learn from its mistakes if it isn't willing to face up to them?  When will the United States decide to set a good example, as it claims to be, for the world?

"Common" Complaints

   The rapper Common made it into the news today after being invited to the White House.  The complaints stem from the fact that he has spoken supportively of Assata Shakur, who has been living in Cuba for many years after being accused of an attack against the New Jersey police.  Having been involved with the Black Panther Party, it has been easier for her opponents here in the U.S. to accuse her of being a "terrorist".  After all, J. Edgar Hoover once desribed the BPP's free breakfast program as one of the biggest threats to the U.S.!!!
   The complaints aren't necessarily directed at Common as much as they are at Obama since we have already entered the 2012 presidential campaign season. So hey, why not try to portray him as having supporters friendly with "terrorist cop killers".  Nevermind the fact that for years she has been living in a country that everyone wonders why is on a list of "terrorist" nations, she has also had for years support from within the U.S. Congress itself.  Certainly the "critics" of the invite aren't suggesting that the President not invite members of Congress for those reasons.
   What is quite interesting though and not mentioned often in our expenisive "free" press, is that  the President swings by South Florida every now and then and rubs elbows with some quite obvious supporters of Terrorist Luis Posada Carriles.  This is a terrorist who walks free in the city of Miami!  This should raise more eyebrows than a rapper being invited to the White House.  For a President waging a "war on terror", arresting and extraditing this man would likely boost the credibility of this "war". 
   But here we are in the country of reality TV, arguing about who is invited to the White House once again.If anyone's image would be damaged by this situation, it very may well be Common's.  After years and years of thoughtful rap and poetry, it all could be put into question by visiting the Nobel Peace Prize President who orders assassinations and wages wars wherever he feels like it.  Honestly I don't think this should damage either one though.  President Obama has time left to do the right thing and Common is an artist who believes in him.
   Anyone of the critics remember George Bush's lunch with Eazy E? He said "F... the Police".  Ice T said "Cop Killer" and supported McCain! Obama probably won't invite Daddy Yankee and his "Mas Gasolina" after the BP oil spill!  Politics as usual!

What Change Do We Believe In?

     The United States has gone through an amazingly difficult decade. The Clinton years, although he managed to do things to the American people that the Republican party at that time couldn't  have pulled off, came to an end and the people were left with an overall good feeling about the direction things were headed.  In general, people became complacent and after what may have been one of the grandest thefts of all time, George W. Bush was handed an electoral victory and would come to impose himself on the world through the partisan decision of the Supreme Court.
     Downright negligence and arrogance led the Bush administration to ignore signs from its own intelligence community and one of the most visually powerful and horrible terrorist attacks struck one of the most famous metropolises in the world on live television.  Panic, confusion, and a rush for revenge managed to give the cowboy president Bush the support he needed to invade Afganistan in order to get the terrorists "dead or alive".  Equally twisted was the president encouraging people to go shopping so that the terrorists wouldn't destroy our way of life.  Stuck in a war that likely couldnn't be won, the administration orchestrated a performance based on falsified documents and distortions to play on people's fears so that it could launch a war in an oil rich country, Iraq.  He deployed tremendous nubers of troops, many of which would never return alive, and many more thousands of merceenaries that are commonly referred to as "contractors".  He was basically wasting away what was left of the public's money after giving massive tax cuts for the richest minority in our society.  By the end of his presidency he had us involved in at least two wars and had created a record debt.  The American people were ready and looking for someone to alter the terrible direction our country was headed.
     In comes Senator Obama.  He shot onto the national scene after treating the previous Democrats' national convention to a fantastically inspiring speech which was refreshing after hearing the verbally challenged Bush speak almost incoherently for a few years.
     Senator Obama decided to take advantage of the people's readiness for someone so positive, so hopeful, and he announced his candidacy with a slogan of change you can believe in.  He captured the hearts of the good people, both young and old, in a campaign against the establishment's favorite Hillary Clinton.  By beating her for the nomination of the party, he had under him a wave of momentum with a base of support rooted in the people.  He continued inspiring, and took tough stances for any politician, and spoke on the side of just causes. He believed in a healthcare system for all and bringing home the soldiers by ending the terrible wars.  His mission would include restoring the country's reputation which was so damaged by the cowboy administration's abuses of human rights and its arrogant dismissal of opposing views from other countries.  He was promising that our country would be a better one basing itself on just priciples.  That is why we had to close down our torture prisons and never be responsible for such atrocities again.  A President Obama would stand with workers here at home and also abroad saying that he would even march side by side with them if necessary.  All of this and much more was what he seemed to be.  He was elected president on November 4, 2008 and got his chance to take office the following January.  His victory was felt to be a victory for the people.
     Things got off to a great start when he signed an order to close down the prison the we created in the base we shouldn't have on Cuba's soil.  Amazingly it seemed that we had elected someone who was really going to do what he had said.  But for whatever reason, little by little he began stepping back from his promises and twisted his fancy words in ways meant to explain why he was bargaining away all of the desires of those who had voted for him.  The wars dragged on and were intensified.  He shifted his focus away from Iraq and towards Afganistan.  He left thousands of soldiers and "contractors" in Iraq but the media left so we as a society wouldn't have to be bothered thinking about it too much anymore.
     He then moved his support for healthcare for all to a position of supporting what amounts to a give away to the insurance companies that are at the heart of the problem.  He extended the outrageous tax cuts implemented by his nearly discredited predecessor but gave assurances that he would not allow that to happen again.  The in the wake of uprisings in the Middle East and Africa, American workers from different states decided to defend their rights which were being robbed by the politicians who do the work of the rich and powerful.  As the protests became some of the strongest and largest in years, the people's president stayed quiet.  Quiet even though a governor was caught saying that he was contemplating bringing violent thugs to sabotage the peaceful protests.
     Now we are getting ready to enter the campaign season, which seems to last as long as the amount of time that the government actually conducts business, and Pesident Obama has kept almost none of the significant promises that he had made during the historical campaign.  He we find ourselved again in a similar situation except that this president's speeches, if nothing else, remain inspiring.  We will once again be faced with the dilemma of having to choose between a candidate that represents the values of the rich and powerful not only in action but in speech and the one that will certainly dress himself up as the people's champion once again.  We will have to choose "the lesser of two evils" and try to find ways to survive at least another four years once he is elected and puts his costume away.
     Looking in on this from the outside, it must be a bit comical hearing us suggest thaat this is the greatest form of government men have ever created.