Having the Pope visiting Cuba next week will be a positive experience for the Catholics who live there. Not only will it be an experience for only those who live on the island, but a number of people from the United States will be travelling there to witness the event. Many of these plans are being arranged or aided by the Catholic Church in Miami and Archbishop Wenski of that city.
Of course as all things relating to Cuba are politicized, the media and certain personalities have done what they can to politicize the Pope's trip. The usual extremists in South Florida have expressed their dismay with the event, powerless to do anything about it. They are also powerless when it comes to convincing many of the Cubans on this side of the straits that they shouldn't want to travel to the island.
In the weeks leading up to the Pope's visit, all that these individuals and the press have been able to do is attempt to create more bad publicity for the island than they usually do. The most interesting and absurd event took place the other day when a group of individuals decided to enter a church in Havana and stay there demanding the Pope's attention.
Perhaps realizing the unlikelihood of having the Pope as an audience, their demands evolved. They decided on demanding the release of individuals that they and other "dissident" groups like to consider political prisoners. The weakness of their case is that the individuals who they call "political" prisoners are actually people who have committed violent acts and are not considered "prisoners of conscience" by anyone serious. If these people committed violence for political aims, most places would consider them terrorists! But having so few issues to rally behind, these folks decided to make this their cause.
After refusing to leave the church for some days despite the church officials asking them to, the church asked the authorities to intervene to bring this situation to an end. Nothing terrible happened to these people, they left the church in a matter of a few minutes and didn't face any sort of prosecution or anything. Everything went peacefully and the situation was over.
Here is where things are interesting. This event was treated in our press as if there was some sort of outrageous reaction by the church and the police involved. Like I said, things ended peacefully.
According to the Miami Herald, "The operation to end the occupation of the Minor Basilica of the Church of Our Lady of Charity in downtown Havana was specifically requested by Cardinal Jaime Ortega, Archbishop of Havana, according to a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Havana, Orlando Marquez.
A statement released shortly after the dissidents were extracted from the church and published Friday in Granma, the Cuban’s Communist Party’s paper and website, said the 13 repeatedly refused to evacuate despite “unilateral’’ requests from church officials and others.
“For this reason” the cardinal asked government authorities to “invite” the occupants to leave the church, the statement said, adding that the Cardinal was assured the dissidents would be safe once outside the church.
The group, which entered the church Tuesday, was demanding the release of political prisoners, Internet access, free speech and discussion of a road map for building the rule of law in Cuba.
The statement said that the eviction took place at 9 p.m. Thursday and lasted 10 minutes.
“The 13 occupiers were invited to leave the church and offered no resistance. The officers who executed the operation had assured the church that they would not carry weapons, would move the 13 people to a police station and then would take them home. Authorities also gave assurances that they would not be prosecuted,” the statement said."
This became a major story over the course of a few days. Let's take a look at another situation and how it was handled in England recently.
According to the Guardian, "Police and bailiffs moved in to begin clearing the Occupy London encampment in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Activists protesting against the financial and banking elite were told by bailiffs that they had five minutes to pack their tents and leave or they would be obstructing a court order.
Dozens of activists started clearing away tents and belongings, but others began building a barricaded enclosure using wooden pallets and debris.
Hundreds of police officers with riot helmets ready by their sides and dozens of bailiffs in yellow vests waited alongside rubbish lorries and watched the eviction."
Ok. If people are engaged in civil disobedience, they are often times expecting this sort of outcome. But why is it that the show of force by the police in a country that is not Cuba not questioned in the same manner that the police in Cuba are? Comparing the two situations, we know that the police in Havana treated the people who refused to leave in a manner that appears to be a lot less intimidating that the way the London police chose, but we are supposed to feel that somehow the police in Cuba are oh so repressive and horrible. Seems like that's the image that our press tries to create for us as we read about Cuba.
This is an example of how our press chooses to report on Cuba. Rarely are things put in to context, as if Cuba existed in a bubble and there would be no way to compare its actions and decisions with those of other countries. Given the number and size of the protests that have sprung up all over the world during the past year, it seems ridiculous to compare the small number of actions in Cuba by mainly people who are in constant contact with the U.S. Interests Section's officials and news agencies which are historically hostile towards Cuba. These things lend credibility to the idea that much of the information we receive about Cuba through our press and government officials are designed to misinform us about the situation in Cuba. This is something more easily done by limiting our ability to travel to the island and see things for ourselves. Many of the athletes and groups of travellers who have been able to get to the island, come back with a much different perspective than what they had expected. They get to see Cuba as it is, with its blemishes and imperfections, but also for its positive aspects also. This must be what those people who so vehemently oppose opening travel and relations fear the most, losing control of the ability to dominate what we know about Cuba.
Showing posts with label free press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free press. Show all posts
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Dishonest Complaints
Here in the U.S., there is the constant search for reasons to claim that Cuba is oppressive. One of the common, yet more recent disingenuous complaints is the lack of Internet access for the people in Cuba. We are supposed to believe that Cuba is a totalitarian country which relies on controlling the information that the people get. I'm not going to go off in to a diatribe about how even though we here in the U.S. are supposed to enjoy the fact that we have a free press, but there is plenty of evidence that large numbers of people remain completely uninformed or flat out incorrect in what they believe to be fact. That's a whole other discussion.
What I will point out are some statistics about Internet access in the U.S. It is an eye opener, especially for those of us who do have high speed Internet access at home and even on our phones. As is pointed out in an article on "Counter Punch", "Naively, it has been assumed that the same conditions present in the developed industrial countries are also present in the rest of the less wealthy world. Yet, there is a digital divide that is not a function of politics, but of income." Income. It is quite simple. The more income one has, the more access to these wonderful things is possible. The same is true for countries. The U.S. has amassed more wealth than any other nation. In spite of this, in the Mecca of anti-Cuba rhetoric, Florida, 33% of households do not connect to the Internet via broadband. In the country, 64% of people earning $25,000 or less don't connect via broadband. 6% of people earning $100,000 or more don't. See the income factor? In Latin America, less than 7% are connected via broadband. I'm willing to bet that the poor aren't the lucky ones. Has anyone here complained about this fact?
Who are we trying to kid? Are we supposed to imagine that Cuba's economy is somehow equal to the U.S. economy? Is Fidel supposed to wave a magic wand and make the required infrastructure appear on the island? The Cuban economy has struggled along, especially since the demise of the Soviet Union, yet not one person has been evicted from there home. They may not have access to broadband, but there is no law preventing the people who are fortunate enough to pay the price from connecting to the Internet. It is slower, and to us that would be nerve wrecking! But the fact remains that Cubans are not prevented from using the Internet. In a certain way, Cubans suffer the same problems that many Americans do. Lack of income. The less developed nations will always be a step or two behind the developed countries, but we should stop and ask ourselves if the inflammatory rhetoric in this case about Cuba is really worthy of our attention. It is in my estimation that this, like so many issues, aren't presented to us honestly. And if the politicians in this country were really concerned about Internet access on the island of Cuba, they would stop impeding Cuba's economy. They would end the blockade of the nation and allow its economy to grow at a natural pace as opposed to being forced to participate in the world economy with two hands tied behind its back. But our politicians haven't yet found the courage to do the right thing and admit its errors in its policy towards Cuba. So for now we'll be forced to hear the usual nonsensical rhetoric and wait for Cuba to not be off limits to us and the much of the world be off limits (by our own doing) to Cuba.
(This is a link to the CounterPunch article I quoted> It is very informative.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/05/cuba-the-embargo-and-the-digital-divide/
What I will point out are some statistics about Internet access in the U.S. It is an eye opener, especially for those of us who do have high speed Internet access at home and even on our phones. As is pointed out in an article on "Counter Punch", "Naively, it has been assumed that the same conditions present in the developed industrial countries are also present in the rest of the less wealthy world. Yet, there is a digital divide that is not a function of politics, but of income." Income. It is quite simple. The more income one has, the more access to these wonderful things is possible. The same is true for countries. The U.S. has amassed more wealth than any other nation. In spite of this, in the Mecca of anti-Cuba rhetoric, Florida, 33% of households do not connect to the Internet via broadband. In the country, 64% of people earning $25,000 or less don't connect via broadband. 6% of people earning $100,000 or more don't. See the income factor? In Latin America, less than 7% are connected via broadband. I'm willing to bet that the poor aren't the lucky ones. Has anyone here complained about this fact?
Who are we trying to kid? Are we supposed to imagine that Cuba's economy is somehow equal to the U.S. economy? Is Fidel supposed to wave a magic wand and make the required infrastructure appear on the island? The Cuban economy has struggled along, especially since the demise of the Soviet Union, yet not one person has been evicted from there home. They may not have access to broadband, but there is no law preventing the people who are fortunate enough to pay the price from connecting to the Internet. It is slower, and to us that would be nerve wrecking! But the fact remains that Cubans are not prevented from using the Internet. In a certain way, Cubans suffer the same problems that many Americans do. Lack of income. The less developed nations will always be a step or two behind the developed countries, but we should stop and ask ourselves if the inflammatory rhetoric in this case about Cuba is really worthy of our attention. It is in my estimation that this, like so many issues, aren't presented to us honestly. And if the politicians in this country were really concerned about Internet access on the island of Cuba, they would stop impeding Cuba's economy. They would end the blockade of the nation and allow its economy to grow at a natural pace as opposed to being forced to participate in the world economy with two hands tied behind its back. But our politicians haven't yet found the courage to do the right thing and admit its errors in its policy towards Cuba. So for now we'll be forced to hear the usual nonsensical rhetoric and wait for Cuba to not be off limits to us and the much of the world be off limits (by our own doing) to Cuba.
(This is a link to the CounterPunch article I quoted> It is very informative.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/05/cuba-the-embargo-and-the-digital-divide/
Friday, September 30, 2011
Blind Justice
"Justice is blind" "Free press"
The Cuban 5
In this case, justice seems to live up to that notion of blindness.
Unfortunately, the press cost money. How can justice continue to be blind to
the fact that the press was paid for? Willful blindness? Press that is free to
sell itself? And sold to those sworn to uphold the Constitution?
These terms were twisted into forms that are unrecognizable. Just the fact that
this trial was allowed to proceed in Miami is enough to question the willingness
on the part of the government to hold a fair trial.
To make matters worse, we later learned that the government was busy making sure
that at least some of the press was willing to act in a way to further pollute
the jury pool in a city that has a known bias in regards to matters dealing with
Cuba.
Now the US finds itself stuck in a situation of its own making. It stands in
defense of a process that is supposed to be fair but by its own actions and
decisions made it impossible. If two wrongs don't make a right, five certainly
don't either. Make that six if we include Rene Gonzalez having to serve three
years of probation in Miami.
The Cuban 5
In this case, justice seems to live up to that notion of blindness.
Unfortunately, the press cost money. How can justice continue to be blind to
the fact that the press was paid for? Willful blindness? Press that is free to
sell itself? And sold to those sworn to uphold the Constitution?
These terms were twisted into forms that are unrecognizable. Just the fact that
this trial was allowed to proceed in Miami is enough to question the willingness
on the part of the government to hold a fair trial.
To make matters worse, we later learned that the government was busy making sure
that at least some of the press was willing to act in a way to further pollute
the jury pool in a city that has a known bias in regards to matters dealing with
Cuba.
Now the US finds itself stuck in a situation of its own making. It stands in
defense of a process that is supposed to be fair but by its own actions and
decisions made it impossible. If two wrongs don't make a right, five certainly
don't either. Make that six if we include Rene Gonzalez having to serve three
years of probation in Miami.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Carlos Montaner, the Economist?
The "free market", if there ever really was one, offers no answers for anything. The fact that corrupt politicians in so-called democracies, depend on so many contributions from the powerful industries, therefore skewing the Keynesnian ideology, doesn't mean that it isn't better than what ,let's say Milton Friedman proposes. If the working public has to sit around starving while they wait for the market gods to bless the business cycle with an upswing, what happens to them? Free marketeers will say that people will become creative and that is incentive to start a new business. How many people will actually start a new business? Some, but not the majority. The rest just have to imagine that aid will come from the goodness of people who are more fortunate and wait.
I wish that the ex-president you dined with had a name to go with his admitted corruption. I'm sure he was friendly with the governments of the world that partake in the plundering of the public's wealth. When a person is elected and chooses to try and do right for his people, Evo Morales for example, and doesn't go along with the status quo allowing the public's wealth to be syphoned off by the usual suspects, the industrialized world cries foul. Why? Because the most entrenched systematic corruption can be found in the halls of the capitols of Washington and European nations. With all of the power possessed by the hypocritical supporters of the free market system and democracy, They, along with people like you Mr. Montaner, exert a tremendous amount of pressure through economic blackmail and violence to try to ensure that a president who you call a friend can be reinstalled in the place of the honest man.
I'm sure that your "opinion" has more to do with the political drama of the United States than it does with other countries, but your support for regimes that rob from their people flies in the face of any argument you might have in opposition to the Keynesnian ideology. Over the past thirty years the transfer of wealth from workers to the elite, thanks in large part to the trickle down theory made famous by Reagan, has left people in the US in an extremely weak situation. It is long overdue, but the politicians of both political parties have almost abandoned any ideas based on Keynes. Unless of course we want to speak about the highly profitable military industrial complex, which is an unfortunate example that would help prove Keynes theory correct. If only half, if not more of what is spent on an industry that thrives on death and destruction, were to be spent on projects that build instead of destroy, there would be numerous examples to help prove Keynesnian theory much more sound than the hopeful free market religion. When the public's money is invested properly in the economy, it is the first domino in a line of businesses that compliment the original expenditure. It is not hard to comprehend.
The reason that people are tired of government spending is that so much of it is done as favors for powerful contributors. The allocated money is not well planned and often wasted. The people loss faith, not in an economic theory, but in the ability of the elected officials to make rational use of the public's money. People often curl into a sort of survival mentality and would, out of emotional frustration, rather the government stop spending. People are easily tricked into believing things like social security is a wasteful Ponzi scheme by either dishonest politicians playing on their fears.
Why is it that the Social Security fund has enough money that it can be lent to the general budget yet it is the target of fiscal irresponsibility? Wouldn't the general budget, the one from which the actual money is passed to the fat cat contributors be a more logical example of where government waste can be eliminated? If the public had a better understanding of the situation, the demands of the government would be different. But as an extension of the "free market", the corporate media is the main source of information for the rightly disgruntled public. We somehow confuse free press with honest reporting, and although much reporting is honest, it is what is left out of the conversation that causes the lack of an informed public. Of course the corporate media has a an agenda, its own. It needs rating for for advertising dollars and so on and so on. There is no reason for a corporate media to go against its interests and explain the whole situation to the public. The public would react in ways that are likely to chip away at the powers that the giant political donors enjoy, the media conglomerates included.
So once again Mr. Montaner, you use your pulpit to argue against the truth. This time about economic theory instead of the usual misrepresentations and slanders against Cuba, Venezuela, and other nations that won't follow the dictates of the self-proclaimed rulers of the hemisphere.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/19/2415273/keynes-and-corruption.html#ixzz1YS55dF8c
I wish that the ex-president you dined with had a name to go with his admitted corruption. I'm sure he was friendly with the governments of the world that partake in the plundering of the public's wealth. When a person is elected and chooses to try and do right for his people, Evo Morales for example, and doesn't go along with the status quo allowing the public's wealth to be syphoned off by the usual suspects, the industrialized world cries foul. Why? Because the most entrenched systematic corruption can be found in the halls of the capitols of Washington and European nations. With all of the power possessed by the hypocritical supporters of the free market system and democracy, They, along with people like you Mr. Montaner, exert a tremendous amount of pressure through economic blackmail and violence to try to ensure that a president who you call a friend can be reinstalled in the place of the honest man.
I'm sure that your "opinion" has more to do with the political drama of the United States than it does with other countries, but your support for regimes that rob from their people flies in the face of any argument you might have in opposition to the Keynesnian ideology. Over the past thirty years the transfer of wealth from workers to the elite, thanks in large part to the trickle down theory made famous by Reagan, has left people in the US in an extremely weak situation. It is long overdue, but the politicians of both political parties have almost abandoned any ideas based on Keynes. Unless of course we want to speak about the highly profitable military industrial complex, which is an unfortunate example that would help prove Keynes theory correct. If only half, if not more of what is spent on an industry that thrives on death and destruction, were to be spent on projects that build instead of destroy, there would be numerous examples to help prove Keynesnian theory much more sound than the hopeful free market religion. When the public's money is invested properly in the economy, it is the first domino in a line of businesses that compliment the original expenditure. It is not hard to comprehend.
The reason that people are tired of government spending is that so much of it is done as favors for powerful contributors. The allocated money is not well planned and often wasted. The people loss faith, not in an economic theory, but in the ability of the elected officials to make rational use of the public's money. People often curl into a sort of survival mentality and would, out of emotional frustration, rather the government stop spending. People are easily tricked into believing things like social security is a wasteful Ponzi scheme by either dishonest politicians playing on their fears.
Why is it that the Social Security fund has enough money that it can be lent to the general budget yet it is the target of fiscal irresponsibility? Wouldn't the general budget, the one from which the actual money is passed to the fat cat contributors be a more logical example of where government waste can be eliminated? If the public had a better understanding of the situation, the demands of the government would be different. But as an extension of the "free market", the corporate media is the main source of information for the rightly disgruntled public. We somehow confuse free press with honest reporting, and although much reporting is honest, it is what is left out of the conversation that causes the lack of an informed public. Of course the corporate media has a an agenda, its own. It needs rating for for advertising dollars and so on and so on. There is no reason for a corporate media to go against its interests and explain the whole situation to the public. The public would react in ways that are likely to chip away at the powers that the giant political donors enjoy, the media conglomerates included.
So once again Mr. Montaner, you use your pulpit to argue against the truth. This time about economic theory instead of the usual misrepresentations and slanders against Cuba, Venezuela, and other nations that won't follow the dictates of the self-proclaimed rulers of the hemisphere.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/19/2415273/keynes-and-corruption.html#ixzz1YS55dF8c
Friday, September 9, 2011
Ping-Pong with Frank Calzon
This is my response to Frank Calzon's plea to remain ignorant in the Miami Herald.
"Just sending athletes to Cuba to engage in some “Ping-Pong Diplomacy” won’t change Cuba." Your right about that. What will change Cuba, but not in the way you or your cohorts would hope, is the ability to sell goods to the largest consumer market in the world. Ending the embargo and all of the supplemental laws that tighten and expand the policy to other countries will give Cuba an opportunity to grow, something which the US has intentionally tried to prevent for a half century.
You speak of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speaking against segregation in the US. Do you choose to leave out his belief that the US should respect the people of Cuba? Would you call him a communist as others called him back then? Would you try to marginalize him even though the majority of Americans think it is time to change our policies towards Cuba?
Do we know about the increased repression? I certainly know that the US is still openly trying to undermine a sovereign country, Cuba. I certainly know that the video of four women standing for 30 minutes in front of the capitol building in Havana showed a camera man cheering them on almost by himself while others, ordinary Cubans walked by and laughed off the staged spectacle. After thirty minutes the women were taken to the patrol car without violence. I know that the creators of the video and their sponsors were frustrated by the fact that they couldn't provoke a violent response, but in spite of what the video shows, they still try to perpetuate the lie.
"A single glimpse often leads to false conclusions." Right again. Americans should travel to Cuba many times, so that they can see for themselves the disservice the propaganda machine with its Miami headquarters has done by keeping American policy decades behind the rest of the world. Remember, the same press you say was duped into believing the "fresh fruits" trucks in the Soviet Union is the same press that seeks comments from people who meet regularly with the officials of the US Interests Section in Havana and receive compensation for much of their "independent work" on the island. This is the same press that sheepishly allowed the previous US administration lead us into a war in Iraq based on lies by the supposed "good guys."
Those African nations which were aided by the Cuban people in their fights towards independence still remember to publicly appreciate the Cuban people for the support given at a time when the US was on the side of those against their independence. Is that what you call "documented anti-Americanism?" Would you say Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was also anti-American because he called our government "the greatest purveyor of violence?" Would you punish Dr. King's supporters and try to keep them separated from the rest of the world? Some arrogant people believe that not following the imaginary rules that are set in Washington is anti -American. So Washington refuses to respect the sovereignty of Cuba and continues to try to undermine it and punish the Cuban people.
The US is increasingly marginalizing itself in a world that views its policies as being cruel and hypocritical. The "hard-liners" are finding themselves in a weakened position as they try to jockey for the sympathy of the American people and comically attempt to represent the aspirations of the Cuban people who they have intentionally caused to suffer unnecessarily for decades.
Mr.Calzon, the end is near, you feel it, it burns. You and others know full well that you are in a race you can't win and won't. The Cuban people are making their own changes and the longer the hard-liners try to punish them for doing so, the less space their will be for them in Havana and Washington in the future.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/08/2397134/ping-pong-diplomacy-changes-little.html#ixzz1XS9BqCWI
"Just sending athletes to Cuba to engage in some “Ping-Pong Diplomacy” won’t change Cuba." Your right about that. What will change Cuba, but not in the way you or your cohorts would hope, is the ability to sell goods to the largest consumer market in the world. Ending the embargo and all of the supplemental laws that tighten and expand the policy to other countries will give Cuba an opportunity to grow, something which the US has intentionally tried to prevent for a half century.
You speak of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speaking against segregation in the US. Do you choose to leave out his belief that the US should respect the people of Cuba? Would you call him a communist as others called him back then? Would you try to marginalize him even though the majority of Americans think it is time to change our policies towards Cuba?
Do we know about the increased repression? I certainly know that the US is still openly trying to undermine a sovereign country, Cuba. I certainly know that the video of four women standing for 30 minutes in front of the capitol building in Havana showed a camera man cheering them on almost by himself while others, ordinary Cubans walked by and laughed off the staged spectacle. After thirty minutes the women were taken to the patrol car without violence. I know that the creators of the video and their sponsors were frustrated by the fact that they couldn't provoke a violent response, but in spite of what the video shows, they still try to perpetuate the lie.
"A single glimpse often leads to false conclusions." Right again. Americans should travel to Cuba many times, so that they can see for themselves the disservice the propaganda machine with its Miami headquarters has done by keeping American policy decades behind the rest of the world. Remember, the same press you say was duped into believing the "fresh fruits" trucks in the Soviet Union is the same press that seeks comments from people who meet regularly with the officials of the US Interests Section in Havana and receive compensation for much of their "independent work" on the island. This is the same press that sheepishly allowed the previous US administration lead us into a war in Iraq based on lies by the supposed "good guys."
Those African nations which were aided by the Cuban people in their fights towards independence still remember to publicly appreciate the Cuban people for the support given at a time when the US was on the side of those against their independence. Is that what you call "documented anti-Americanism?" Would you say Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was also anti-American because he called our government "the greatest purveyor of violence?" Would you punish Dr. King's supporters and try to keep them separated from the rest of the world? Some arrogant people believe that not following the imaginary rules that are set in Washington is anti -American. So Washington refuses to respect the sovereignty of Cuba and continues to try to undermine it and punish the Cuban people.
The US is increasingly marginalizing itself in a world that views its policies as being cruel and hypocritical. The "hard-liners" are finding themselves in a weakened position as they try to jockey for the sympathy of the American people and comically attempt to represent the aspirations of the Cuban people who they have intentionally caused to suffer unnecessarily for decades.
Mr.Calzon, the end is near, you feel it, it burns. You and others know full well that you are in a race you can't win and won't. The Cuban people are making their own changes and the longer the hard-liners try to punish them for doing so, the less space their will be for them in Havana and Washington in the future.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/08/2397134/ping-pong-diplomacy-changes-little.html#ixzz1XS9BqCWI
Tuesday, 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
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
Mr. Tamayo's "Do-Over"
A few days ago in the Miami Herald's website, Juan Tamayo wrote an article with the title "Cuban transgender woman says she was fired because her lover is with opposition." Of course like most articles in the Miami Herald, the title alone would make an uninformed reader think that Cuba once again is repressing people. For those people who get their news by reading through titles of articles without ever bothering to go any farther, they would easily form a negative opinion of Cuba. But for those who take the time to read more than just the headlines, they would notice that in the very first line of the article, Mr. Tamayo contradicts the flashy title by writing, "A transgender woman has quit her job at a government-run sex studies center..."
Amazing! How can what Mr. Tamayo writes be considered journalism? Can such blatant trickery be respected? By the sympathizers of the anti-Cuba extremists this would be quite acceptable since they consider lying about Cuba the norm. But to people who respect the idea of actual journalism, this type of thing is nothing short of offensive.
A few people brought up this point in the comments after the article. After a couple of days, magically the same exact article appeared but with a new title which read, "Transgender activist resigns after clash with Castro daughter." Amazing again! What is even more strange is that both exact articles still stand in the same section of the Miami Herald with links to each other. After the false impression was given and left for days without correction the damage was certainly done, at least for those who simply skim the titles.
What made Mr. Tamayo decide to change the title is any one's guess. I would imagine that if not shame for such a blatant lie, embarrassment at the very least is what Mr. Tamayo felt. But who knows. Maybe the Miami Herald couldn't stand to let such an error slide. People must be vigilant and thorough when looking through the news. In this world of "free press" a lot more than just the truth gets by and it is our responsibility to point it out when a situation like this occurs. So probably as a result of scrutiny, Mr. Tamayo was forced to make a "do-over".
Amazing! How can what Mr. Tamayo writes be considered journalism? Can such blatant trickery be respected? By the sympathizers of the anti-Cuba extremists this would be quite acceptable since they consider lying about Cuba the norm. But to people who respect the idea of actual journalism, this type of thing is nothing short of offensive.
A few people brought up this point in the comments after the article. After a couple of days, magically the same exact article appeared but with a new title which read, "Transgender activist resigns after clash with Castro daughter." Amazing again! What is even more strange is that both exact articles still stand in the same section of the Miami Herald with links to each other. After the false impression was given and left for days without correction the damage was certainly done, at least for those who simply skim the titles.
What made Mr. Tamayo decide to change the title is any one's guess. I would imagine that if not shame for such a blatant lie, embarrassment at the very least is what Mr. Tamayo felt. But who knows. Maybe the Miami Herald couldn't stand to let such an error slide. People must be vigilant and thorough when looking through the news. In this world of "free press" a lot more than just the truth gets by and it is our responsibility to point it out when a situation like this occurs. So probably as a result of scrutiny, Mr. Tamayo was forced to make a "do-over".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)