One of the executives of the Directorio Democratico Cubano, Orlando Gutierrez-Baronat, must be worried. He felt that it was necessary for himself to "set the record straight" on the U.S. government funded programs directed towards interfering with Cuba. After the money for these programs were partly spent on Nintendos, Godiva chocolates, and cashmere sweaters, he begs people to understand why his group, and others like it, need to continue receiving dollars from the American people.
Unfortunately for him, his facts are phony. He refers to the "dissident" movements in Cuba, who are regularly featured in the international press, as grassroots movements. Let's take a look at how firmly these roots are planted in reality.
Since his little "Directorate" is one of the main sponsors for the Ladies in White", we can be safe to assume he imagines that group to be a "grassroots movement". They entered the scene a few years back when 75 people were jailed in Cuba for being found guilty of basically being on the payroll of the United States. What often goes unreported is that the participants of their marches are payed about $30 dollars per job, excuse me, per march. Receiving payments from abroad for marching may be enough to sustain a presence large enough for photo ops for the Miami Herald, but it certainly challenges Mr. Gutierrez-Baronat's assertion that they are homegrown protests or "grassroots". If there are roots, they are like to be found in the U.S. Interests Section or Miami. As the former head of the Interests Section pointed out, these people are ones “who are more interested in asking for money than carrying out programs.” As we all know, Johnathan Ferrar is no longer employed at the U.S. Interests Section after this revealing analysis!
Mr. Gutierrez-Baronat confirms what the Cuban government has long said calling the U.S. financial support a "permanent support infrastructure". When Cuban officials make this kind of a statement, the anti-Cuba extremists cry manipulation, yet this man, whose organization depends heavily on Washington's funding, is proud to be a part of the creation of such non-grassroots movements. If anything at all, I'd like to thank him for the acknowledgment of the U.S. hand in creating what is supposed to be considered internal dissent in Cuba. But by his own clumsy acknowledgement, he disputes his own logic. Unless he considers Cuban "grassroots" to be located in Miami!
He touts the media's manipulation of the "grassroots" movements as having made a contribution to the change in the international community's attitude towards Cuba. This is nearly delusional, a common symptom of the extremists operating in Miami, as he is surely aware that year after year the international condemnation of U.S. policy towards Cuba has only grown to almost complete solidarity with Cuba's right to determine its own course free from the pressures of the U.S. laws. Cuba's relationships have expanded acrross the globe, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, which was an incedent that caused many to believe that Cuba would too collapse.
"Reality belies the propaganda.", stated Mr. Gutierrez-Baronat. Yes it does! And for the national secretary of the Directorio Democratico Cubano, he must be worried about something. Perhaps he feels that there exists sufficient evidence that his group shouldn't continue to receive funding from Washington. Perhaps he won't get a chance to buy new cashmere sweaters, update the Nintendo with a Playstation, or replenish his box of chocolates! So he pleads his case in the Miami Herald, preaching his distortions in an attempt to justify the wasted dollars of the American taxpayers. Hopefully his group will lose the funding, and we can get a chance to see how deep those roots of dissent in Cuba really are.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Montaner's Poblem
Carlos Alberto Montaner suffers. He suffers the fool's disease. Somehow his musings make their way to the Miami Herald despite his perpetual lack of understanding how things really are.
His focus, for the most part, is to create myths about Cuba, maybe to make himself feel better about being on the wrong side of history. Maybe it's just because he represents the extremist community which has held a grip on U.S./Cuba policy for decades, a grip which is loosening. Now, he has side tracked a bit and created a poor literary work about Venezuela's political situation.
He wrote a fairy tale about Maria Corina Machado. She is one of the flies which the eagle doesn't hunt. She's also a Venezuelan politician who represents the oligarchs who were one in control of Venezuela. By virtue of being a lackey for the oligarchs, she has also become a favorite by the Washington "democracy organizations, receiving millions of dollars in attempts to challenge Hugo Chavez and the will of the Venezuelan people.
Mr. Montaner wrote about this woman in a way that shows his unwillingness to accept the revolutionary process occurring in Venezuela. Ignoring the overwhelming support that Chavez enjoys of his people, Mr. Montaner imagines that this woman is to be some sort of hero as she wages her campaign in favor of returning Venezuela to its formerly exploited state. That is why during the coup attempt against Chavez, Corina signed off on the documents by the coup leaders which shut down government institutions and abolished the new constitution approved by the Venezuelan people. She is firmly on the side against the masses, so she is a hero to Mr. Montaner.
Mr. Montaner was tickled pink by the fact that Maria Corina wants the Cubans out of Venezuela. Less tickled pink would be the great number of Venezuelans who have benefited from the strong ties and solidarity between the peoples of Cuba and Venezuela. To Montaner, a rupture in those relations would be welcomed since it would likely cause some difficulties to his arch enemy, Cuba. He, as others in the rabidly anti-Cuba clique, want to make life difficult on the island for the people that they pretend to love.
As problematic as reality is for Mr. Montaner, the poor politician Corina can't seem to shake the temptations of using the language of despots such as Pinochet. Her "popular capitalism" is an acknowledgement that populism itself is a greater than outright defense of the business interests eager to exploit. She tries to position herself as a populist, but the Venezuelan people are not stupid. They understand that giving reign to the oligarchs would mean their own exclusion from deciding their own destiny.
Poor Carlos Alberto. He imagines that the defeat of Chavismo is unstoppable. He ignores President Chavez's popularity. He walks through life with his eyes closed and clumsily bumps into stubborn facts. For a man who claims that Fidel suffers from dementia, his own has become pretty obvious. That is Montaner's problem
His focus, for the most part, is to create myths about Cuba, maybe to make himself feel better about being on the wrong side of history. Maybe it's just because he represents the extremist community which has held a grip on U.S./Cuba policy for decades, a grip which is loosening. Now, he has side tracked a bit and created a poor literary work about Venezuela's political situation.
He wrote a fairy tale about Maria Corina Machado. She is one of the flies which the eagle doesn't hunt. She's also a Venezuelan politician who represents the oligarchs who were one in control of Venezuela. By virtue of being a lackey for the oligarchs, she has also become a favorite by the Washington "democracy organizations, receiving millions of dollars in attempts to challenge Hugo Chavez and the will of the Venezuelan people.
Mr. Montaner wrote about this woman in a way that shows his unwillingness to accept the revolutionary process occurring in Venezuela. Ignoring the overwhelming support that Chavez enjoys of his people, Mr. Montaner imagines that this woman is to be some sort of hero as she wages her campaign in favor of returning Venezuela to its formerly exploited state. That is why during the coup attempt against Chavez, Corina signed off on the documents by the coup leaders which shut down government institutions and abolished the new constitution approved by the Venezuelan people. She is firmly on the side against the masses, so she is a hero to Mr. Montaner.
Mr. Montaner was tickled pink by the fact that Maria Corina wants the Cubans out of Venezuela. Less tickled pink would be the great number of Venezuelans who have benefited from the strong ties and solidarity between the peoples of Cuba and Venezuela. To Montaner, a rupture in those relations would be welcomed since it would likely cause some difficulties to his arch enemy, Cuba. He, as others in the rabidly anti-Cuba clique, want to make life difficult on the island for the people that they pretend to love.
As problematic as reality is for Mr. Montaner, the poor politician Corina can't seem to shake the temptations of using the language of despots such as Pinochet. Her "popular capitalism" is an acknowledgement that populism itself is a greater than outright defense of the business interests eager to exploit. She tries to position herself as a populist, but the Venezuelan people are not stupid. They understand that giving reign to the oligarchs would mean their own exclusion from deciding their own destiny.
Poor Carlos Alberto. He imagines that the defeat of Chavismo is unstoppable. He ignores President Chavez's popularity. He walks through life with his eyes closed and clumsily bumps into stubborn facts. For a man who claims that Fidel suffers from dementia, his own has become pretty obvious. That is Montaner's problem
Monday, February 6, 2012
Shameless, Weak
But in a battle of ideas, the truth eventually triumphs. The Cuban government released a statement explaining the circumstances of his death and the reasons for his incarceration. Quite simply, the man who had been instantly branded a dissident, was actually not. He was a person who had beaten his wife and was found guilty of that crime.
I know, we aren't supposed to believe Cuban authorities. They are supposed to be our enemy, a country still on the list of terrorist nations. But these "ideas" are nothing more that creations to justify the continued lack of political will of the folks in Washington. These ideas are weak, these ideas are withering.
Can we believe the newest member of the Ladies in White? This group is constantly given much respect within our press. Maritza Pelegrino joined these ladies after the death of her husband, Mr. Villar. Let's be aware that according to her, as reported by the Washington Post "Maritza Pelegrino said her late husband, Wilman Villar, was first arrested after her mother alerted neighbors and police in July 2011 about a marital dispute. Authorities say Villar beat Pelegrino, but she downplayed the seriousness of the incident."
Of course domestic violence is not of a political nature, so why would Mr. Villar be considered a "dissident"? Because knowing that he would face jail, he likely believed that by aligning himself with "dissident" groups, who themselves are aligned with the U.S., he felt that he could somehow be treated differently than ordinary criminals are. He joined up with some of those groups just a couple of months after his initial arrest. His belief was misguided and he ended up being sentenced anyway, as the common criminal that he was.
What I'm writing isn't an invention. I was a bit surprised that this correction to the original story was actually found in the Washington Post, one of the news outlets which had previously jumped on the "dead dissident" bandwagon. It was published on January 30, 2012.
Shamelessly though, on the very same day, the Director of the Foundation for Human Rights(!), Matt Brady, felt the need to stick to the untrue story. He continued to push the idea which had already disintegrated as the truth had come out. The Huffington Post published his article named "Letting Cuban Prisoners Die During Hunger Strikes Doesn't Make Sense...". What doesn't make sense is that a person would cling to such a silly lie, certainly knowing that the truth had already been told. He asserted that letting the man die shows a "complete disregard for humanity", surely knowing full well that the medical treatment that Mr. Villar received in one of the region's top medical facilities doesn't amount to a disregard for humanity. The best medical treatment in the world can't always prevent death.
Matt Brady is shameless. He chose to glorify a man who physically abused his wife and dishonestly embraced him as some sort of hero. Mr. Brady is a part of Freedom House, an organization which depends on U.S. tax dollars to operate, so it is no wonder why he would be interested in maintaining the status quo is far as the lies about Cuba go. What the American people should be questioning is why we spend money on organizations such as Freedom House when they are obviously not willing to be truthful in the information that they spread. It's not enough to question the integrity of organizations like that, we have to question the entire dialogue in our press about Cuba.
The simple fact is that the arguments and attacks against Cuba are shameless.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
The Cuban Spring
After witnessing what has been called the "Arab Spring", many commentators here in the U.S. ask the question "will there be a Cuban Spring?" A better question might be "will Americans be there?" Not many. The U.S. still doesn't allow American to travel freely to the island. Though there are now more opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba, a person must fall in to one of the few categories of approved licences by the Treasury Department. Hopefully, in the near future, our politicians will unshackle themselves from the cold hearted extremists who have controlled the issue for over 50 years.
Micheal Goodwin earlier this week, wrote a piece carried on the FOX website, asking that same tired question. In order for him to have formed his rationale, he had to be willing to play dumb for his audience.
He began his article with this quote from the right-wing Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” This is the typical slanderous jab at the system which seeks to create a more just society. It seems especially disingenuous when the United States depends so heavily on "other people's money." Not only does our government rely on borrowing from other countries, but one of the largest financiers is communist China. Perhaps the capitalist United States should keep its fingers crossed that it doesn't run out of communists to support its system of inequality. If it were to run out, we may experience our own special period.
He goes on to explain how Havana's buildings are crumbling. Certainly proof that socialism is bankrupt, right? But of course he fails to mention that a similar situation occurred in South America's largest economy, Brazil, within the last week. Perhaps the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota a couple of years back slipped his mind. Would these two examples be proof of the failed capitalist world? Perhaps.
Having forgotten such things, the author goes on to speak about rumors about Fidel having dementia. He must be referring to an article written by Carlos Alberto Montaner in early January. Intelligent people realize that Mr. Montaner is completely delusional, if not dishonest, about the subject of Cuba. Perhaps both suffer from dementia. Fidel is certainly lucid enough to accurately describe the Republican primaries!
He claims that Cubans are cut off from the outside world. The lack of iPhones is the measuring stick that he prefers in this instance. Then, he points out that the rest of the world, not the United States, is increasingly engaged in the island. He points out the silly positions taken by Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney opposing trade with Cuba. He points out the contradiction in trading with China and not Cuba. He actually correctly points out that they voice this opposition to trade with Cuba to appeal to the crowd in Miami. This must be the most pandered to group over the past five decades.
He then implies that Cuba isn't really interested in trading with the U.S. This claim comes despite many calls by the Cuban government and the rest of the world to end the embargo. How does he imagine this? Does he pretend that the embargo doesn't really effect the Cuban economy? Cubans would be delighted to be able to sell things to the largest consumer market in the world. Besides selling to us, the Cuban state would save millions of dollars not having to navigate its way around the most far reaching sanctions ever imposed on a nation.
"Their arrest of Alan Gross, an American working with the State Department to help Cuban Jews connect to the Internet, was a chilling illustration of who they are. Gross is serving a 15-year sentence." Statements like this are fine in the land of propaganda, but it ignores the simple fact that Mr. Gross is in prison for violating Cuban law by clandestinely working for USAID. What the situation really tells us is how the politicians, aware of the solution to the situation, prefer to have him remain imprisoned for now so as to have some sort of talking point against Cuba since their arguments no longer make much sense to anyone.
He finishes his article with a sarcastic statement which reads, "So don’t expect a Cuban Spring anytime soon." Allow me to answer the poor man with a bit of sarcasm but truth. Spring starts on Tuesday March 20.
Micheal Goodwin earlier this week, wrote a piece carried on the FOX website, asking that same tired question. In order for him to have formed his rationale, he had to be willing to play dumb for his audience.
He began his article with this quote from the right-wing Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” This is the typical slanderous jab at the system which seeks to create a more just society. It seems especially disingenuous when the United States depends so heavily on "other people's money." Not only does our government rely on borrowing from other countries, but one of the largest financiers is communist China. Perhaps the capitalist United States should keep its fingers crossed that it doesn't run out of communists to support its system of inequality. If it were to run out, we may experience our own special period.
He goes on to explain how Havana's buildings are crumbling. Certainly proof that socialism is bankrupt, right? But of course he fails to mention that a similar situation occurred in South America's largest economy, Brazil, within the last week. Perhaps the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota a couple of years back slipped his mind. Would these two examples be proof of the failed capitalist world? Perhaps.
Having forgotten such things, the author goes on to speak about rumors about Fidel having dementia. He must be referring to an article written by Carlos Alberto Montaner in early January. Intelligent people realize that Mr. Montaner is completely delusional, if not dishonest, about the subject of Cuba. Perhaps both suffer from dementia. Fidel is certainly lucid enough to accurately describe the Republican primaries!
He claims that Cubans are cut off from the outside world. The lack of iPhones is the measuring stick that he prefers in this instance. Then, he points out that the rest of the world, not the United States, is increasingly engaged in the island. He points out the silly positions taken by Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney opposing trade with Cuba. He points out the contradiction in trading with China and not Cuba. He actually correctly points out that they voice this opposition to trade with Cuba to appeal to the crowd in Miami. This must be the most pandered to group over the past five decades.
He then implies that Cuba isn't really interested in trading with the U.S. This claim comes despite many calls by the Cuban government and the rest of the world to end the embargo. How does he imagine this? Does he pretend that the embargo doesn't really effect the Cuban economy? Cubans would be delighted to be able to sell things to the largest consumer market in the world. Besides selling to us, the Cuban state would save millions of dollars not having to navigate its way around the most far reaching sanctions ever imposed on a nation.
"Their arrest of Alan Gross, an American working with the State Department to help Cuban Jews connect to the Internet, was a chilling illustration of who they are. Gross is serving a 15-year sentence." Statements like this are fine in the land of propaganda, but it ignores the simple fact that Mr. Gross is in prison for violating Cuban law by clandestinely working for USAID. What the situation really tells us is how the politicians, aware of the solution to the situation, prefer to have him remain imprisoned for now so as to have some sort of talking point against Cuba since their arguments no longer make much sense to anyone.
He finishes his article with a sarcastic statement which reads, "So don’t expect a Cuban Spring anytime soon." Allow me to answer the poor man with a bit of sarcasm but truth. Spring starts on Tuesday March 20.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Dear President Obama
January 30, 2011
Dear President Obama,
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.
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
Sunday, January 29, 2012
U.S. Hypocricy Needs to Change
For all of the money and effort spent by the folks in Washington to create an opposition movement in Cuba, and all of the pressure put on the nation of Cuba by the laws enacted by Washington, Cuba continues to advance in peace. Cuba remains on the U.S. terrorist list, yet no evidence can be found that Cuba has supported terrorism, nor has it been an aggressive nation. It is acknowledged by military and intelligence officials as not posing any threat to the U.S. Record numbers of Americans are traveling to the island explaining upon their return that the image of Cuba presented to us in the press doesn't match what they experienced. Within the community of Cubans living in the United States, there is a growing support for changing the policies that have endured for over a half of a century. The business community in the U.S. has been openly speaking of the advantages of opening more trade with Cuba. Many cities in the United States have sent delegations to Cuba expressing good will and hopes that things can change so that relationships can be expanded.
In spite of all of the positive attitudes that exist, the official line of the United States is to continue to state that Cuba must change its form of government and that Cuba must respect human rights. It is none of the business of Washington to determine what kind of government Cuba should have. The complaints about human rights in Cuba is a talking point which has nothing to do with Cuba's reality. Washington complains of arrests of supposed dissidents while protesters are routinely arrested in the U.S. This is pure hypocrisy. The supposed dissidents who are arrested on the island have been shown to be working with the U.S. government which openly considers itself an enemy of Cuba's government. Is a nation supposed to allow some people to work to undermine it on behalf of an enemy government? Of course not. What is truly absurd is that the protesters in the United States who are arrested are never found to be working for a foreign government. Their dissent is natural. Their dissent is born from a feeling within the United States.
It is not considered a human right in the U.S. to have a home or shelter. If it were, the U.S. would be a massive violator of human rights. Homelessness is rampant here and increasing. Also not considered human rights are medical care and education. These are considered commodities that are to be bought by those who can afford them.
Cuba has a different perspective. There are no homeless people in Cuba. Cuba has taken all possible measures to ensure that people have a place to call home, even if the conditions aren't what the average citizen in developed countries would expect for themselves. Medical care is provided for free for the people of Cuba, even the so-called dissidents. Higher education is also available for no charge by anyone who decides to pursue it.
The disconnect from reality by our politicians serves nobody well. It simply helps perpetuate the ignorant status quo of Cuba policy in Washington. Hopefully the positive forces that have been growing within the United States can force their way ahead of the extremist interest group which is headquartered in Miami. When the thoughtful voices are taken seriously, there will undoubtedly be positive engagement between Washington and Havana for the benefit of everyone.
In spite of all of the positive attitudes that exist, the official line of the United States is to continue to state that Cuba must change its form of government and that Cuba must respect human rights. It is none of the business of Washington to determine what kind of government Cuba should have. The complaints about human rights in Cuba is a talking point which has nothing to do with Cuba's reality. Washington complains of arrests of supposed dissidents while protesters are routinely arrested in the U.S. This is pure hypocrisy. The supposed dissidents who are arrested on the island have been shown to be working with the U.S. government which openly considers itself an enemy of Cuba's government. Is a nation supposed to allow some people to work to undermine it on behalf of an enemy government? Of course not. What is truly absurd is that the protesters in the United States who are arrested are never found to be working for a foreign government. Their dissent is natural. Their dissent is born from a feeling within the United States.
It is not considered a human right in the U.S. to have a home or shelter. If it were, the U.S. would be a massive violator of human rights. Homelessness is rampant here and increasing. Also not considered human rights are medical care and education. These are considered commodities that are to be bought by those who can afford them.
Cuba has a different perspective. There are no homeless people in Cuba. Cuba has taken all possible measures to ensure that people have a place to call home, even if the conditions aren't what the average citizen in developed countries would expect for themselves. Medical care is provided for free for the people of Cuba, even the so-called dissidents. Higher education is also available for no charge by anyone who decides to pursue it.
The disconnect from reality by our politicians serves nobody well. It simply helps perpetuate the ignorant status quo of Cuba policy in Washington. Hopefully the positive forces that have been growing within the United States can force their way ahead of the extremist interest group which is headquartered in Miami. When the thoughtful voices are taken seriously, there will undoubtedly be positive engagement between Washington and Havana for the benefit of everyone.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Gingich: The History Professor
As I've explained before, the anti-Cuba rhetoric during Florida campaigns is the same as it always has been. Newt Gingrich is attempting to set the bar of ignorance even higher than it usually is. He suggested that he, as president, would bomb Cuba if he thought the situation called for it. He was supposed to be a history professor at one point in his career. One would think that a history professor would have some sort of grasp of history, but in the case of Gingrich, apparently not.
Not only is he imagining some sort of right of the United States to intervene in Cuba, but he doesn't even have a grasp of current bombing campaigns by the U.S. and the outcomes of those campaigns. He is one of those ignorant people who actually believes in the idea that bombs and war create peaceful situations. This is not 1960, a time when the governments of Latin America were easily pressured by Washington to go along with trying to isolate Cuba. The year is 2012, and he should be aware of the strong bonds that Cuba has with the rest of the world, especially Latin America. Surely, Mr. Gingrich would try to claim that after bombing the proud people of Cuba, they would greet us with flowers!
By making such stupid remarks, it becomes obvious that he is simply pandering to the twisted right wing crowd in South Florida who can't for a single moment realize that Cuba does not belong to them. It isn't a U.S. territory, it isn't a colony, and it certainly isn't a client state of the U.S. It is a sovereign nation, which by international law, allows it to determine it's own affairs. The power brokers in Washington may hold on to a belief in the Monroe Doctrine, but they should be aware enough to realize that it is an imperialist doctrine rejected by the countries in the hemisphere. Imagining that it should or could be imposed is a grave error which only makes relationships with our neighbors more difficult.
In a few days, the Republicans will have their primary election in Florida and they will rush off to the next pandering battleground state. Their arrogance, ignorance, and flamboyant stupidity is on display for all to see. With almost every action and word they speak, they affirm Fidel Castro's description of them: "The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is - and I mean this seriously - the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been."
Not only is he imagining some sort of right of the United States to intervene in Cuba, but he doesn't even have a grasp of current bombing campaigns by the U.S. and the outcomes of those campaigns. He is one of those ignorant people who actually believes in the idea that bombs and war create peaceful situations. This is not 1960, a time when the governments of Latin America were easily pressured by Washington to go along with trying to isolate Cuba. The year is 2012, and he should be aware of the strong bonds that Cuba has with the rest of the world, especially Latin America. Surely, Mr. Gingrich would try to claim that after bombing the proud people of Cuba, they would greet us with flowers!
By making such stupid remarks, it becomes obvious that he is simply pandering to the twisted right wing crowd in South Florida who can't for a single moment realize that Cuba does not belong to them. It isn't a U.S. territory, it isn't a colony, and it certainly isn't a client state of the U.S. It is a sovereign nation, which by international law, allows it to determine it's own affairs. The power brokers in Washington may hold on to a belief in the Monroe Doctrine, but they should be aware enough to realize that it is an imperialist doctrine rejected by the countries in the hemisphere. Imagining that it should or could be imposed is a grave error which only makes relationships with our neighbors more difficult.
In a few days, the Republicans will have their primary election in Florida and they will rush off to the next pandering battleground state. Their arrogance, ignorance, and flamboyant stupidity is on display for all to see. With almost every action and word they speak, they affirm Fidel Castro's description of them: "The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is - and I mean this seriously - the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been."
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Old Bread
There is nothing more stale than the customary pandering to the extremists in Miami during the election cycles. There are more politicians repeating the same nonsense about Cuba to the usuals on Calle 8 than there are empty plastic coffee cups in the trash cans in Miami. It is the same usual routine; drink coffee at the Versailles bakery while rubbing elbows with the defenders of terrorists like Orlando Bosch an Luis Posada Carriles. Each and every candidate explains how he or she will be Castro's biggest enemy. Each and every candidate explains how he or she has the secret plan to finally bring down the Cuban revolution. Each and every candidate knows full well that their words are more useless than all of the covert and overt actions perpetrated by the U.S. against Cuba combined. Only the delusional dinosaurs of Calle 8 are mesmerized and believe the rhetoric.
Here's an excerpt from The Milwaulkee Sentinel dated October 24, 1960. "Castro is destined to go- whether or not Nixon or Kennedy becomes the new president. The embargo on exports is merely the beginning of contemplated moves moves with intervention blueprinted as the ultimate measure." That is an article from the time of the presidential campaign between Nixon and Kennedy. As we can see, this is not new rhetoric! History can show us that predictions from the U.S. have been wrong for over 50 years.
Here we are in 2012, new actors, excuse me, politicians have descended upon the world of Miami. The strange town that suffers from the Kennedy syndrome although he has been dead for almost a half of a century. They somehow hold on to the idea that they maintain some sort of significance on the island of Cuba. They are so far out of touch that they don't even recognize that they are becoming a minority in their own stronghold, Miami, the retirement home of ex-Latin American thugs and terrorists.
The only breath of fresh air comes from Ron Paul, who the media has treated as a circus act which only hurt his chances in the race. I think his economic policies would be disastrous, but his policy of not interfering with the internal workings of other countries should be a more common position in American politics.
So after the elections of 2012, the street sweepers in Miami will be busy once again cleaning up the countless anti-Castro political propaganda as this issue remains unresolved. Not the issue of Castro, which should not be the business of American politicians, but the issue of the embargo which isolates the U.S. from the rest of the world. Please, let's demand more than just stale bread. Let's find the strength to end the terrible policy of the embargo against Cuba and normalize relations so that the people in both countries can work together for a better future.
Here's an excerpt from The Milwaulkee Sentinel dated October 24, 1960. "Castro is destined to go- whether or not Nixon or Kennedy becomes the new president. The embargo on exports is merely the beginning of contemplated moves moves with intervention blueprinted as the ultimate measure." That is an article from the time of the presidential campaign between Nixon and Kennedy. As we can see, this is not new rhetoric! History can show us that predictions from the U.S. have been wrong for over 50 years.
Here we are in 2012, new actors, excuse me, politicians have descended upon the world of Miami. The strange town that suffers from the Kennedy syndrome although he has been dead for almost a half of a century. They somehow hold on to the idea that they maintain some sort of significance on the island of Cuba. They are so far out of touch that they don't even recognize that they are becoming a minority in their own stronghold, Miami, the retirement home of ex-Latin American thugs and terrorists.
The only breath of fresh air comes from Ron Paul, who the media has treated as a circus act which only hurt his chances in the race. I think his economic policies would be disastrous, but his policy of not interfering with the internal workings of other countries should be a more common position in American politics.
So after the elections of 2012, the street sweepers in Miami will be busy once again cleaning up the countless anti-Castro political propaganda as this issue remains unresolved. Not the issue of Castro, which should not be the business of American politicians, but the issue of the embargo which isolates the U.S. from the rest of the world. Please, let's demand more than just stale bread. Let's find the strength to end the terrible policy of the embargo against Cuba and normalize relations so that the people in both countries can work together for a better future.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Hard To Handle
For decades, the right wing Cuban community in the United States has comfortably and confidently controlled the politics and discussion in the United States in regards to Cuba. They have had the benefit of interests that coincided with the power structures in Washington and parts of corporate America, and with this alignment, they have maintained an unfortunate stranglehold on the issue of Cuba.
They have benefited from government subsidies to create expensive radio stations with no audiences and countless other programs that benefitted nobody except a select few, who have neither the interests of Cubans on the island nor in this country in mind. They have crafted special immigration laws for only themselves, which are viewed as unfair by many others, and have in fact been a dangerous enticement for people living in the island who either want to emigrate to the U.S. to reunite with family or have bought in to the idea of the American dream, which seems to be increasingly elusive for most people in this country.
They have had the luxury of a news media whose reference to them as exiles has painted a picture in the minds of many other Americans of a people forced from their homeland and banished forever, something that is actually not the reality. The original wave of Cubans (post 1959) was of mainly well off people who left willingly, with the belief that soon they would return after the pesky bearded guys returned things back to "normal" or were replaced by someone who would do so.
Remnants of the Batista regime set up shop in South Florida. Immediately, they did everything imaginable, from blockades to invasion to terrorism to try and inflict damage on the Cuban revolution, and by extension, the Cuban people suffered.
As time has gone on, much has changed and now, probably more than ever, changes are outpacing the old guard and their minions in Miami. The Cuban community in this country has many more people here now that favor engaging with their fellow Cubans on the island. Many of the newer arrivals suffered a great deal due to the politics of the original South Florida power brokers, the ones who long for a return to the days of pre-revolutionary Cuba. People are now making it known that they want greater connections with people on the island. There was incredible outrage within the Cuban community in South Florida when travel was greatly restricted under the Bush administration. When an attempt by Diaz-Balart to return to those restrictions was being kicked around in congress, it became obvious once again that the Batista crowd was on the wrong side of history. The measure was dropped, exposing a growing lack of political relevance of the Diaz-Valart brand.
Not only is the Cuban community changing, but there is an increasing desire on the part of businesses and cities which would benefit from a new relationship with Cuba. From Tampa to cities in states all over the nation, opinions pieces are carried in local media highlighting how their respective areas can benefit from an openness in U.S. policy. Flights are now departing from many cities across the country that touch down in Cuba and they are carrying American passengers.
Cuba remains the only country for which Americans need permission from our own government to travel. Americans are tired of it. There is pent-up desire to travel to the forbidden island and there are many options now available that fit under one of the few categories permitted by the Treasury Department. People are going and many are coming back with positive experiences. Educational trips and cultural exchanges are occurring more and more often.
"I think a lot of Americans have these stereotypes — that it's a communist
country, that you don't really have any rights and people don't really like
Americans," Cohen said. "All that kind of stuff was totally untrue in our eyes."
These are the words of a college baseball player who just finished playing some games against Cuban teams on the island.
All of the changes are very positive. The fact that the hard liners are less able to control so much on behalf of such a bitter few is very welcomed. That's not to say that they aren't trying to hold there ground, it's just they aren't able to. It's very hard for them to handle this new reality. Many will simply remain in denial, the same type of denial that led there choice to leave Cuba to be twisted in to there insistence that they were exiled. They will denounce ever step towards better relations and every honest gesture on the part of Cuba or the U.S. as having some sort of conniving move that is meant to deceive people.
Quoting Jose Manuel Palli in his analysis of the housing reforms in Cuba, "Here in Miami, we tend to discard anything we hear from Cuban officials as misleading propaganda, when in most cases we end up confirming later that what they said is exactly what they meant to say or do. " A brutally honest description of how the "exiles" are usually in denial.
They have benefited from government subsidies to create expensive radio stations with no audiences and countless other programs that benefitted nobody except a select few, who have neither the interests of Cubans on the island nor in this country in mind. They have crafted special immigration laws for only themselves, which are viewed as unfair by many others, and have in fact been a dangerous enticement for people living in the island who either want to emigrate to the U.S. to reunite with family or have bought in to the idea of the American dream, which seems to be increasingly elusive for most people in this country.
They have had the luxury of a news media whose reference to them as exiles has painted a picture in the minds of many other Americans of a people forced from their homeland and banished forever, something that is actually not the reality. The original wave of Cubans (post 1959) was of mainly well off people who left willingly, with the belief that soon they would return after the pesky bearded guys returned things back to "normal" or were replaced by someone who would do so.
Remnants of the Batista regime set up shop in South Florida. Immediately, they did everything imaginable, from blockades to invasion to terrorism to try and inflict damage on the Cuban revolution, and by extension, the Cuban people suffered.
As time has gone on, much has changed and now, probably more than ever, changes are outpacing the old guard and their minions in Miami. The Cuban community in this country has many more people here now that favor engaging with their fellow Cubans on the island. Many of the newer arrivals suffered a great deal due to the politics of the original South Florida power brokers, the ones who long for a return to the days of pre-revolutionary Cuba. People are now making it known that they want greater connections with people on the island. There was incredible outrage within the Cuban community in South Florida when travel was greatly restricted under the Bush administration. When an attempt by Diaz-Balart to return to those restrictions was being kicked around in congress, it became obvious once again that the Batista crowd was on the wrong side of history. The measure was dropped, exposing a growing lack of political relevance of the Diaz-Valart brand.
Not only is the Cuban community changing, but there is an increasing desire on the part of businesses and cities which would benefit from a new relationship with Cuba. From Tampa to cities in states all over the nation, opinions pieces are carried in local media highlighting how their respective areas can benefit from an openness in U.S. policy. Flights are now departing from many cities across the country that touch down in Cuba and they are carrying American passengers.
Cuba remains the only country for which Americans need permission from our own government to travel. Americans are tired of it. There is pent-up desire to travel to the forbidden island and there are many options now available that fit under one of the few categories permitted by the Treasury Department. People are going and many are coming back with positive experiences. Educational trips and cultural exchanges are occurring more and more often.
"I think a lot of Americans have these stereotypes — that it's a communist
country, that you don't really have any rights and people don't really like
Americans," Cohen said. "All that kind of stuff was totally untrue in our eyes."
These are the words of a college baseball player who just finished playing some games against Cuban teams on the island.
All of the changes are very positive. The fact that the hard liners are less able to control so much on behalf of such a bitter few is very welcomed. That's not to say that they aren't trying to hold there ground, it's just they aren't able to. It's very hard for them to handle this new reality. Many will simply remain in denial, the same type of denial that led there choice to leave Cuba to be twisted in to there insistence that they were exiled. They will denounce ever step towards better relations and every honest gesture on the part of Cuba or the U.S. as having some sort of conniving move that is meant to deceive people.
Quoting Jose Manuel Palli in his analysis of the housing reforms in Cuba, "Here in Miami, we tend to discard anything we hear from Cuban officials as misleading propaganda, when in most cases we end up confirming later that what they said is exactly what they meant to say or do. " A brutally honest description of how the "exiles" are usually in denial.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Pope's Visit and the Choices That the Cubans in Miami Face
This is my comment to the opinion by one person's take on the Pope's Visit to Cuba which was in the Miami Herald. As usual, the opinion tries to belittle the Pope's visit with the typical condescending tone of the anti-Cuba crowd, which is finding itself more marginalized by the day.
"From afar, by choice, the Cuban community in South Florida can do a few things. They can, under current law, send money and packages of helpful goods to their families on the island. Many do already and the gestures are always welcomed.
Also, they can become more vocal in their desires to build on the connections they have on the island by insisting that those who represent their districts do not support the hurtful policies that have a huge hand in some of the difficulties that the Cubans on the island experience. Cuba's economy should be able to grow without the unnecessary obstacles posed by the embargo and Helms-Burton.
They can let it be known that the politicians such as Diaz-Balart, Ros-Lehtinen, and Rubio represent a shrinking minority of folks who don't want life to be better on the island.
One thing that they cannot do, nor ever will be able to do, is determine how Cuba decides to conduct its affairs. One can agree or disagree, but no one outside of Cuba can make a sovereign Cuba do anything that it doesn't feel is in its interest. Not even the Pope, who I'm sure won't be imposing himself on anyone. He will simply be lending his spiritual support to those who feel they would like it."
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/10/2583319/a-sliver-of-hope-in-popes-visit.html#storylink=cpy
"From afar, by choice, the Cuban community in South Florida can do a few things. They can, under current law, send money and packages of helpful goods to their families on the island. Many do already and the gestures are always welcomed.
Also, they can become more vocal in their desires to build on the connections they have on the island by insisting that those who represent their districts do not support the hurtful policies that have a huge hand in some of the difficulties that the Cubans on the island experience. Cuba's economy should be able to grow without the unnecessary obstacles posed by the embargo and Helms-Burton.
They can let it be known that the politicians such as Diaz-Balart, Ros-Lehtinen, and Rubio represent a shrinking minority of folks who don't want life to be better on the island.
One thing that they cannot do, nor ever will be able to do, is determine how Cuba decides to conduct its affairs. One can agree or disagree, but no one outside of Cuba can make a sovereign Cuba do anything that it doesn't feel is in its interest. Not even the Pope, who I'm sure won't be imposing himself on anyone. He will simply be lending his spiritual support to those who feel they would like it."
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/10/2583319/a-sliver-of-hope-in-popes-visit.html#storylink=cpy
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/
Thursday, December 22, 2011
D.C.: Trapped By Unpopular Demand
One of the common slanders against Cuba heard in our media is the claim that the island is a prison. "People are trapped." Although the rules of travel are different then many other countries' rules, it isn't true that Cubans are unable to travel.
It is being reported and has been speculated for many months, that these restrictions, which are easy targets for propaganda against the island, will be soon eliminated. When this happens, it will leave those cold hearted extremists with one more argument lost that they use to attempt to justify the embargo.
Even more interestingly, part of the changes in the Cuban laws may be that it will become easier for people to return to live on the island, virtually eliminating the "permanent" exit that so many Cubans opt for when they choose to leave to make their lives in another country.
Is the U.S. ready for such a thing? Officially, the Obama administration has decided to pretend that there have been no signs of change on the island. I don't think Washington has found a way to wrap its mind around the fact that the changes in Cuba are profound and independent of Washington's 50+ years demands. But Cuba evolves anyways and Washington will have to watch as Cubans on the island and abroad are welcoming the changes.
Gone from the list of excuses for maintaining the embargo will be the nonsense about Cuba being "an island prison". This hasn't been true. Cubans have traveled from Cuba to various countries and back to Cuba again in spite of the red tape which makes it unnecessarily difficult. The U.S. will be put on the spot as its own denial of visas are put on display. I have witnessed with my own eyes people waiting for their fifth and sixth interviews for visas only to be denied again by the U.S. authorities.
What will be done about the wet foot/ dry foot policy, which entices people to risk their lives for automatic residency? Will political asylum still be granted to any Cuban who asks for it? Perhaps only Cubans willing to skip the normal visa process and try to come with neither permission to enter the U.S. nor an exit permit will be celebrated as political refugees?
With each step that is being taken by Cuba to improve its society, it is becoming more difficult for the political establishment to twist and turn as it attempts to justify the position of maintaining the embargo/ blockade.
It is being reported and has been speculated for many months, that these restrictions, which are easy targets for propaganda against the island, will be soon eliminated. When this happens, it will leave those cold hearted extremists with one more argument lost that they use to attempt to justify the embargo.
Even more interestingly, part of the changes in the Cuban laws may be that it will become easier for people to return to live on the island, virtually eliminating the "permanent" exit that so many Cubans opt for when they choose to leave to make their lives in another country.
Is the U.S. ready for such a thing? Officially, the Obama administration has decided to pretend that there have been no signs of change on the island. I don't think Washington has found a way to wrap its mind around the fact that the changes in Cuba are profound and independent of Washington's 50+ years demands. But Cuba evolves anyways and Washington will have to watch as Cubans on the island and abroad are welcoming the changes.
Gone from the list of excuses for maintaining the embargo will be the nonsense about Cuba being "an island prison". This hasn't been true. Cubans have traveled from Cuba to various countries and back to Cuba again in spite of the red tape which makes it unnecessarily difficult. The U.S. will be put on the spot as its own denial of visas are put on display. I have witnessed with my own eyes people waiting for their fifth and sixth interviews for visas only to be denied again by the U.S. authorities.
What will be done about the wet foot/ dry foot policy, which entices people to risk their lives for automatic residency? Will political asylum still be granted to any Cuban who asks for it? Perhaps only Cubans willing to skip the normal visa process and try to come with neither permission to enter the U.S. nor an exit permit will be celebrated as political refugees?
With each step that is being taken by Cuba to improve its society, it is becoming more difficult for the political establishment to twist and turn as it attempts to justify the position of maintaining the embargo/ blockade.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Keep It Together Mr. Cardona!
The anti-Cuba extremists got handed a defeat this week. Mario Diaz-Balart's proposal to make life more difficult on Cuban families was dropped from a bill in the House due to pressure by the President. A big victory for logical people who understand that families shouldn't become subject to their dirty politics nor should the definition of relative. It's fine if Mario doesn't want to visit his cousins(!), but he shouldn't prevent those who do and would be welcomed with open arms.
Since at least the Elian Gonzalez fiasco, caused by the lunatics in Miami, the anti-Cuba crowd has been finding it more difficult to maintain the upperhand in convincing people that they make sense. It's hard to make sense when you don't. So Joe Cardona took a stab at trying to convince readers what the problems with Cuba are. He labels the Cuban government the "800 pound gorrila". Here is my reponse to his nonsense:
"The 800 pound gorilla in this situation might actually be one of two things.
First it may be the embargo, which has intentionally caused more economic difficulty on the island than ever was necessary. Even though economic warfare is the expressed intent of this policy which remains in place, those who have supported it somehow make the illogical jump to blaming all economic woes on the island on Castro. It is dishonest, and actually makes little sense. But I wouldn't say that this is the 800 lb gorilla, The full weight of the embargo by the US definitely weighs more than only 800 lbs.
The second possibility is that the 800 pounder is the rabidly anti-Castro/ anti-Cuba crowd that has been holding our foreign policy captive for too many decades. But when I reflect on that pitiful group, and consider the attitudes of a growing number of both Americans and Cuban immigrants, I think that they actually weigh a lot less than 800 lbs. They are getting skinnier, weaker. Their power is fading and they know it. You know it, Mr. Cardona.
So as you guys scramble to hold it together, Cuba's society is evolving, building on the foundations that were created after Batista fled. They are doing so without you guys, independently. Sure, they would love to normalize relations with Washington, it would be positive here and there. They might just get a chance sooner than that pitiful group in Miami ever dreamed.
(You can read Mr. Cardona's sillines with the following link)
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/16/2550105/cubas-800-pound-gorilla.html#ixzz1gnzih1Ua
Since at least the Elian Gonzalez fiasco, caused by the lunatics in Miami, the anti-Cuba crowd has been finding it more difficult to maintain the upperhand in convincing people that they make sense. It's hard to make sense when you don't. So Joe Cardona took a stab at trying to convince readers what the problems with Cuba are. He labels the Cuban government the "800 pound gorrila". Here is my reponse to his nonsense:
"The 800 pound gorilla in this situation might actually be one of two things.
First it may be the embargo, which has intentionally caused more economic difficulty on the island than ever was necessary. Even though economic warfare is the expressed intent of this policy which remains in place, those who have supported it somehow make the illogical jump to blaming all economic woes on the island on Castro. It is dishonest, and actually makes little sense. But I wouldn't say that this is the 800 lb gorilla, The full weight of the embargo by the US definitely weighs more than only 800 lbs.
The second possibility is that the 800 pounder is the rabidly anti-Castro/ anti-Cuba crowd that has been holding our foreign policy captive for too many decades. But when I reflect on that pitiful group, and consider the attitudes of a growing number of both Americans and Cuban immigrants, I think that they actually weigh a lot less than 800 lbs. They are getting skinnier, weaker. Their power is fading and they know it. You know it, Mr. Cardona.
So as you guys scramble to hold it together, Cuba's society is evolving, building on the foundations that were created after Batista fled. They are doing so without you guys, independently. Sure, they would love to normalize relations with Washington, it would be positive here and there. They might just get a chance sooner than that pitiful group in Miami ever dreamed.
(You can read Mr. Cardona's sillines with the following link)
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/16/2550105/cubas-800-pound-gorilla.html#ixzz1gnzih1Ua
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
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.
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.
Miami and D.C.; Axis of Propaganda
Jose Azel. Just one of the many whose articles or opinion pieces on the subject of Cuba should be considered as nothing more than litter. His writings add nothing of any intelligence to the debate about US policy towards the island.
As opposed to taking an honest opinion about the subject, his most recent piece attempts to clutter the minds of the readers. Iran is a touchy subject here in the US, especially within the context of our political discourse which heavily relies on fear mongering. Talking heads and politicians alike have exploited the terrorist attacks in 2001 to justify every military action, every torture, every secret prison, and every sacrificed civil liberty. Political candidates and office holders are almost frozen by their fear of appearing weak so that they march to the drum beat of the military industrial complex which profits from war whether it is a quagmire or a relatively simple drone strike to apply the death penalty on a perceived enemy without showing the strength and confidence of due process.
By associating Cuba with Iran, Mr. Azel is counting on readers to imagine a new "axis of evil" which threatens the US. He continues attempting to portray Cuba in a bad light for supporting Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power. Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, and by that measure, Iran is within its rights to carry on with its nuclear activities. Washington has disregarded the spirit of so many treaties, why would it be expected to treat Iran's rights as a signatory to this one any differently?
Everyone on earth is aware that the reason Washington is concerned about Iran having nuclear power has nothing to do with its own security but that it would neutralize Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region. Only a purely arrogant attitude can suggest that Iran has no right to defend itself.
But that's all part of the game Mr Azel plays. His entire argument attempts to claim that we need to be concerned about "rogue" type nations. We should be, but "rogue" by his standards is one that isn't dominated by Washington or Europe. Cuba has not been willing to follow the dictates of Washington since 1959 and therefore the arrogant people in power believe it should be considered a problem.
Azel's argument though, is being made at a time when growing numbers of Americans want to move beyond the senseless embargo and are becoming more vocal. Even more troublesome for Mr. Azel is that the same trend can be found amongst Cubans living in the US. The mighty power of the anti-Cuba groups has been waning in recent years so it is natural that they employ tactics like Mr. Azel chooses to employ.
Mr.Azel states that a relationship between Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela is "perplexing". The three countries have different economic systems and religious beliefs. Should this be a stumbling block for respect between nations? Of course not. What brings these countries together? Mutual interests. Mutually beneficial trade. Mr. Azel would like our imaginations to come to the idea that the mutual interest shared by these countries is something like the destruction of the US, but that is a political game meant for the people who are unwilling to think clearly. Cuba and Iran suffer from sanctions and it is natural that they would seek to find ways to benefit from trade between each other. Washington can sanction those two countries all it wants but it clearly can't prevent them from trading with each other. Necessity will trump economic and religious ideologies, why else would Washington be so friendly with Saudi Arabia or China for a couple of examples?
Mr. Azel knows that people can understand that it is normal for these countries to do business, but true to his anti-Cuba form, he slips into his analysis the charge of illicit business going on between them. Extremists like him always feel the need to make things appear more sinister than they actually are. He says that we would be mistaken to view their dealings through our "western" perspective. What is special about our perspective? Is not every country seeking to better itself economically? Ahh, but his arrogance reveals itself. "They" according to him are different. If he can convince us of that, then we can imagine them to be inferior, proclaiming ourselves more enlightened, more benevolent.
Thinking that he himself is more enlightened than the rest of us, Mr. Azel goes into some nonsense about the unifying factor is the hostility of these countries towards the US, once again looking to cause reason to worry. He can't except that Bolivia and Ecuador also don't follow the rules of the Northern giant, so he deduces that they too are under the influence of the Iranian government or Castro (the ultimate vulgarity for a man who works in the University of Miami's Institute of Cuban and Cuban-American Studies).
What this pseudo-intellectual is unwilling to admit is that there is a tremendous popular awakening in Latin America and a wave of elections being won by candidates who aren't anti-American but pro their people. These anti-imperialists are speaking in a way that irks the dominant powers of yesterday who are more likely to try to slander them than respect them. That is why he feels the need to suggest that we fear South-South friendships that run counter to the status quo. He pushes the idea that we should fear them and our foreign policy should be more aggressive, lumping all countries who strive to make their own future free from foreign domination into the sinister camp.
It's time for thoughtfulness to defeat Mr. Azel's and others' arrogance and story telling. Cuba has no history of aggressive actions towards the US. In fact, it has been an victim of over 50 years of aggression and economic warfare by Washington and the extremists in Miami. The rest of the world is aware what kind of dangerous stories are created by extremists in the US. Just look at what our lies led to in Iraq. Mr. Azel is just one more creative mind trying to present to us an alternate reality, one in which we should be fearful of countries taking their own paths, that they threaten our tranquility. His silliness needs to be recognized for what it is, one more story meant to portray revolutionary Cuba as the boogeyman 90 miles away.
You can read Jose Azel's newest addition to Miami's axis of propaganda at :
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/10/2539364/the-tehran-havana-caracas-axis.html
As opposed to taking an honest opinion about the subject, his most recent piece attempts to clutter the minds of the readers. Iran is a touchy subject here in the US, especially within the context of our political discourse which heavily relies on fear mongering. Talking heads and politicians alike have exploited the terrorist attacks in 2001 to justify every military action, every torture, every secret prison, and every sacrificed civil liberty. Political candidates and office holders are almost frozen by their fear of appearing weak so that they march to the drum beat of the military industrial complex which profits from war whether it is a quagmire or a relatively simple drone strike to apply the death penalty on a perceived enemy without showing the strength and confidence of due process.
By associating Cuba with Iran, Mr. Azel is counting on readers to imagine a new "axis of evil" which threatens the US. He continues attempting to portray Cuba in a bad light for supporting Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power. Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, and by that measure, Iran is within its rights to carry on with its nuclear activities. Washington has disregarded the spirit of so many treaties, why would it be expected to treat Iran's rights as a signatory to this one any differently?
Everyone on earth is aware that the reason Washington is concerned about Iran having nuclear power has nothing to do with its own security but that it would neutralize Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region. Only a purely arrogant attitude can suggest that Iran has no right to defend itself.
But that's all part of the game Mr Azel plays. His entire argument attempts to claim that we need to be concerned about "rogue" type nations. We should be, but "rogue" by his standards is one that isn't dominated by Washington or Europe. Cuba has not been willing to follow the dictates of Washington since 1959 and therefore the arrogant people in power believe it should be considered a problem.
Azel's argument though, is being made at a time when growing numbers of Americans want to move beyond the senseless embargo and are becoming more vocal. Even more troublesome for Mr. Azel is that the same trend can be found amongst Cubans living in the US. The mighty power of the anti-Cuba groups has been waning in recent years so it is natural that they employ tactics like Mr. Azel chooses to employ.
Mr.Azel states that a relationship between Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela is "perplexing". The three countries have different economic systems and religious beliefs. Should this be a stumbling block for respect between nations? Of course not. What brings these countries together? Mutual interests. Mutually beneficial trade. Mr. Azel would like our imaginations to come to the idea that the mutual interest shared by these countries is something like the destruction of the US, but that is a political game meant for the people who are unwilling to think clearly. Cuba and Iran suffer from sanctions and it is natural that they would seek to find ways to benefit from trade between each other. Washington can sanction those two countries all it wants but it clearly can't prevent them from trading with each other. Necessity will trump economic and religious ideologies, why else would Washington be so friendly with Saudi Arabia or China for a couple of examples?
Mr. Azel knows that people can understand that it is normal for these countries to do business, but true to his anti-Cuba form, he slips into his analysis the charge of illicit business going on between them. Extremists like him always feel the need to make things appear more sinister than they actually are. He says that we would be mistaken to view their dealings through our "western" perspective. What is special about our perspective? Is not every country seeking to better itself economically? Ahh, but his arrogance reveals itself. "They" according to him are different. If he can convince us of that, then we can imagine them to be inferior, proclaiming ourselves more enlightened, more benevolent.
Thinking that he himself is more enlightened than the rest of us, Mr. Azel goes into some nonsense about the unifying factor is the hostility of these countries towards the US, once again looking to cause reason to worry. He can't except that Bolivia and Ecuador also don't follow the rules of the Northern giant, so he deduces that they too are under the influence of the Iranian government or Castro (the ultimate vulgarity for a man who works in the University of Miami's Institute of Cuban and Cuban-American Studies).
What this pseudo-intellectual is unwilling to admit is that there is a tremendous popular awakening in Latin America and a wave of elections being won by candidates who aren't anti-American but pro their people. These anti-imperialists are speaking in a way that irks the dominant powers of yesterday who are more likely to try to slander them than respect them. That is why he feels the need to suggest that we fear South-South friendships that run counter to the status quo. He pushes the idea that we should fear them and our foreign policy should be more aggressive, lumping all countries who strive to make their own future free from foreign domination into the sinister camp.
It's time for thoughtfulness to defeat Mr. Azel's and others' arrogance and story telling. Cuba has no history of aggressive actions towards the US. In fact, it has been an victim of over 50 years of aggression and economic warfare by Washington and the extremists in Miami. The rest of the world is aware what kind of dangerous stories are created by extremists in the US. Just look at what our lies led to in Iraq. Mr. Azel is just one more creative mind trying to present to us an alternate reality, one in which we should be fearful of countries taking their own paths, that they threaten our tranquility. His silliness needs to be recognized for what it is, one more story meant to portray revolutionary Cuba as the boogeyman 90 miles away.
You can read Jose Azel's newest addition to Miami's axis of propaganda at :
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/10/2539364/the-tehran-havana-caracas-axis.html
Sunday, November 27, 2011
A Choice of Words
The ideological battle between the left and right, socialism and capitalism, is alive and well even though around two decades ago it had supposedly been settled. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has extended its influence over the globe. As the capitalist system has extended itself, the world has not seen less wars nor has the market provided answers to things such as hunger and housing. In fact those problems have intensified even within the U.S. itself.
In the country that boasts of the freedom to protest, we have seen protesters beaten and pepper sprayed and removed from the sites of the gatherings. In the past few years people have been forced from their homes while bankers have made enormous profits after being subsidized by the people who are supposed to tighten their belts. At the same time that people protest the unjust situation, the "free" press which is mainly corporatist, lectures the people about the wonders of entrepreneurs, as if the people are upset with entrepreneurial activity and not the fact that the largest corporations and Wall Street firms write our legislation for their sponsored politicians to make law that runs against the interests of the majority of the people.
In Cuba, the socialist government has been undergoing a process of implementing changes to the structure of the economy. The economy, for the most part, was designed in a time when a socialist camp of countries existed and provided an alternative to the capitalist model. Since this is no longer the case, Cuba has decided to proceed in a way which makes it possible to preserve the advances it has accomplished, yet at the same time become more functional in the world it lives in.
It is no secret to the politicians in Washington that the policy of maintaining the embargo against Cuba is useless. There are various business groups which are clamoring to find ways to convince Washington that it is time to rethink the wrong-headed policy. More people to people bridges are built between the two countries despite the attempts at economic isolation.
Recently there have even been op-ed articles promoting the idea of IMF loans to Cuba. There are almost daily articles about the return of capitalism to Cuba. The press seems to be more and more searching for ways to help the stubborn Washington politicians to find ways to justify an about face in regards to Cuba.
Look, as far as viewing the changes in Cuba's economic system through the eyes of a believer in capitalism goes, it's understandable that the changes can be considered a turn towards capitalism. But through the eyes of many believers in socialism, it should be viewed as a way of eliminating many of the bureaucratic obstacles and inconveniences that people faced on the island. Also, it must be recognized that Cuba is intentionally maintaining the achievements it has made since its revolution in 1959. There will not be a reappearance of homelessness, malnutrition, nor lack of medical care or an educational system which requires people to amass a debt in order to get a degree. These are some of the things allow Cuba to be socialist. The investments coming from abroad are all being directed towards projects that will not only grow the economy but will do so to expand and improve on the benefits that the country provides for its people.
Yes, there are similarities in how businesses in a capitalist society operate and how businesses in socialist Cuba do. But that isn't what gives a country the capitalist character. Capitalist countries allow a disproportionate amount of wealth to be accumulated in a few hands. It does so to the detriment of many as it doesn't attempt to truly remedy the problems they face. Minor adjustments are made because of a certain amount of pressure by the people who really do yearn for more equitable circumstances. But always there are screams by the proponents of free markets against such measures. They, along with their corporate sponsors spend a great deal of effort trying to convince people that the problems are actually a result of intervention in the market. It is actually an attempt to explain why it is better for the rich to get richer while the rest get poorer.
Things in any type of system must be produced, sold, and bought. That is what blurs the line between capitalism and socialism. What differs socialism drastically from capitalism is how the society decides to make an economic system work for the benefit of the entire population. Socialism strives for growth that is sustainable and avoids the exploitation of the workers for the profits of a few.
In some ways the society which Cuba aims to achieve is very similar to what the protesters all over the world are demanding for themselves. To the dismay of the capitalist preachers, they know that the people of the world are looking for an alternative to their sermons.
In the country that boasts of the freedom to protest, we have seen protesters beaten and pepper sprayed and removed from the sites of the gatherings. In the past few years people have been forced from their homes while bankers have made enormous profits after being subsidized by the people who are supposed to tighten their belts. At the same time that people protest the unjust situation, the "free" press which is mainly corporatist, lectures the people about the wonders of entrepreneurs, as if the people are upset with entrepreneurial activity and not the fact that the largest corporations and Wall Street firms write our legislation for their sponsored politicians to make law that runs against the interests of the majority of the people.
In Cuba, the socialist government has been undergoing a process of implementing changes to the structure of the economy. The economy, for the most part, was designed in a time when a socialist camp of countries existed and provided an alternative to the capitalist model. Since this is no longer the case, Cuba has decided to proceed in a way which makes it possible to preserve the advances it has accomplished, yet at the same time become more functional in the world it lives in.
It is no secret to the politicians in Washington that the policy of maintaining the embargo against Cuba is useless. There are various business groups which are clamoring to find ways to convince Washington that it is time to rethink the wrong-headed policy. More people to people bridges are built between the two countries despite the attempts at economic isolation.
Recently there have even been op-ed articles promoting the idea of IMF loans to Cuba. There are almost daily articles about the return of capitalism to Cuba. The press seems to be more and more searching for ways to help the stubborn Washington politicians to find ways to justify an about face in regards to Cuba.
Look, as far as viewing the changes in Cuba's economic system through the eyes of a believer in capitalism goes, it's understandable that the changes can be considered a turn towards capitalism. But through the eyes of many believers in socialism, it should be viewed as a way of eliminating many of the bureaucratic obstacles and inconveniences that people faced on the island. Also, it must be recognized that Cuba is intentionally maintaining the achievements it has made since its revolution in 1959. There will not be a reappearance of homelessness, malnutrition, nor lack of medical care or an educational system which requires people to amass a debt in order to get a degree. These are some of the things allow Cuba to be socialist. The investments coming from abroad are all being directed towards projects that will not only grow the economy but will do so to expand and improve on the benefits that the country provides for its people.
Yes, there are similarities in how businesses in a capitalist society operate and how businesses in socialist Cuba do. But that isn't what gives a country the capitalist character. Capitalist countries allow a disproportionate amount of wealth to be accumulated in a few hands. It does so to the detriment of many as it doesn't attempt to truly remedy the problems they face. Minor adjustments are made because of a certain amount of pressure by the people who really do yearn for more equitable circumstances. But always there are screams by the proponents of free markets against such measures. They, along with their corporate sponsors spend a great deal of effort trying to convince people that the problems are actually a result of intervention in the market. It is actually an attempt to explain why it is better for the rich to get richer while the rest get poorer.
Things in any type of system must be produced, sold, and bought. That is what blurs the line between capitalism and socialism. What differs socialism drastically from capitalism is how the society decides to make an economic system work for the benefit of the entire population. Socialism strives for growth that is sustainable and avoids the exploitation of the workers for the profits of a few.
In some ways the society which Cuba aims to achieve is very similar to what the protesters all over the world are demanding for themselves. To the dismay of the capitalist preachers, they know that the people of the world are looking for an alternative to their sermons.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
An Alternative Example
The International Monetary Fund has a history of being a tool of the powerful countries to take control over less developed ones. Over time, the IMF has been actively trapping countries into positions of owing so much money that it becomes impossible to pay without new loans. These new loans often come at a price. The price of these loans isn't only the interest a country must pay, but also a restructuring of the country's economy so that large portions of public services end up in the hands of foreign corporations. What is supposed to be a helpful hand turns out actually being an economy subjected to foreign interests. This situation is so extreme at times that people wind up not owning their own water sources. Governments are forced to cut social services and programs for their people just to pay the interest on unpayable loans.
As the people of the rich nations are facing hard economic situations and austerity measures in their own countries while watching the banks and financial institutions get bail outs, many have taken to the streets to protest the growing inequalities in wealth within their own societies. Although these are the very countries that proclaim to be the most democratic, it seems quite obvious that some voices are heard over others. While the vast majority will be forced to swallow the poison pill, the tiny elite who control most of the world's wealth are accumulating riches at levels never before seen.
These measures, we are told by our "democratic" governments, are necessary to create a better economic situation for all. The "trickle down" economic theory has spread across much of the world. But is it really the way to a more equitable and stable economic future?
The answer to this question may be found in the most interesting of places. The IMF's International Monetary and Financial Committee's September 24, 2011 report contains a section on Argentina. In it it states:
sustainable economic and social structure."
"Argentina follows a solid path that sustains high rates of growth as a result of the policy
recent episodes of volatility in international commodity prices."
"We believe it is necessary to
As the people of the rich nations are facing hard economic situations and austerity measures in their own countries while watching the banks and financial institutions get bail outs, many have taken to the streets to protest the growing inequalities in wealth within their own societies. Although these are the very countries that proclaim to be the most democratic, it seems quite obvious that some voices are heard over others. While the vast majority will be forced to swallow the poison pill, the tiny elite who control most of the world's wealth are accumulating riches at levels never before seen.
These measures, we are told by our "democratic" governments, are necessary to create a better economic situation for all. The "trickle down" economic theory has spread across much of the world. But is it really the way to a more equitable and stable economic future?
The answer to this question may be found in the most interesting of places. The IMF's International Monetary and Financial Committee's September 24, 2011 report contains a section on Argentina. In it it states:
:In the past decade, Argentina’s economy has undergone an unprecedented structural
transformation. Since the 2001/02 crisis, Argentina has recorded eight consecutive years of
growth, a sequence that has not been witnessed since the 1963-1974 period. Between 2003
and 2010, average annual economic growth was almost 8 percent, but the outstanding aspect
of this unprecedented growth period is that it was achieved together with a noticeable
reduction in poverty, unemployment, and inequality. From the point of view of the
Argentinean experience, growth must be broadly shared in order to build a more mature and
sustainable economic and social structure."
"Argentina follows a solid path that sustains high rates of growth as a result of the policy
framework followed by the country since 2003. It is based on a sound macroeconomic
policy framework supported by continuous twin surpluses, external and fiscal, a disindebtedness
process with no precedents, responsible fiscal and monetary policies, a floating
exchange rate regime, and the accumulation of foreign reserves. In this regard, the historical
pattern of stop and go that has characterized the Argentinean economy since the post-war
period was avoided. Key components of the model are job creation, fairness and social
inclusion and income distribution. In the past eight years, the average income per capita
grew by 60 percent in real terms and public expenditure per capita increased tenfold during
the same period. 3.5 million jobs were created, with unemployment decreasing from 18 to 7.3
percent, while the average real wage climbed 37 percent. Improvements in the minimum
wage, as recently occurred, benefit both the functional and the personal income distribution.
We share the view that equality is an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining
growth.
1 Social and political stability supported economic stability, and social participation
was preferred to social repression. Argentina has also been particularly successful in
guarding the most vulnerable sectors of its population, as well as its producers from the
recent episodes of volatility in international commodity prices."
"We believe it is necessary to
continue to rethink the role played by credit rating agencies through concrete policies aimed
at reducing dependence and enhancing supervision."
Is seems that the fact that Argentina decided to reject the usual prescriptions by these international lending institutions led them out of the crisis they were facing and on to a solid future. This is a point that should be realized by the countries dealing with enormous debt and also by the countries who may in the future consider listening to the ideas of the IMF.
Perhaps ways other than what the elite bankers of the world would like countries to follow are more rewarding. Perhaps countries are going to have much different relations with these institutions in the future.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Silly Promises and a Promising Future
I am often baffled by the level of willingness that many Americans have to find excuses for the actions of the U.S. government. There should be little confusion about the fact that although this country has democratic systems in place, there exists a situation in which many people feel like their voices aren't represented by those who have been elected. We are close to entering the fourth year of Obama's presidency and there has been plenty of disappointment with what he has accomplished, or more appropriately, what he hasn't accomplished.
Back when Bush was still president and the 2008 election was in full swing, Obama was able to take away the Democrat party's nomination from Hillary Clinton's seemingly probable role. This was possible due to the positions each had taken in regards to the war Bush decided to start in Iraq. Hillary Clinton attempted to pretend that her vote to give Bush the power to wage war without Congress giving him the the authority to do so, was done believing that war wasn't necessarily going to be pursued. She supported the war, regardless what she tried to say during the campaign. Obama put himself on the side of the people's sentiment against the war. He was immune to having to defend himself as Hillary tried since it was a vote he never had to cast. It was an easy position for him to take and it impressed more voters. Obama cruised to victory at a time when most people would have chosen almost anyone who seemed to offer a break from the ignorant policies of the Bush administration.
The new president came in appearing as a man who would finally do the people's business instead of working on behalf of the powers that had already become one with both political parties. His bold beginning was to order the closing down of the black hole like torture chamber in occupied Guantanamo Cuba. But hindsight is 20/20. The prison remains, as does the occupation of that part of Cuba.
He then decided to seem like he was going to go farther than anyone else had and create a health care system that was dedicated to allowing health care to be reached by all Americans. But quickly it became obvious that he had no intentions in eliminating the main obstacle to such a system, the insurance companies. We are told by those like the president that we have to do what is possible and although we know that there is no way to defend the fact that this health care system is one designed for profit and since it is so, people are refused necessary care and those who are covered by insurance are often financially ruined by the prices that are unpayable. We are expected to rationalize what we know is wrong. We are supposed to believe that his health care accomplishment, which gives more business, more profits to the very companies that hold people hostage to policies that would be laughable if they were actually a joke and it wasn't such a despicable arrangement, is a major victory for the people.
"Bush's War" quickly became Obama's war and he decided to hide behind "what the generals think" as if his civilian presidency wasn't actually able to tell the generals what was good for the country. We are supposed to imagine that because he campaigned as if he was against the war, we are somehow waging one in a way that it wouldn't have been waged had John McCain won the election. That actually isn't even the point.
The point is that he was elected because people had come to realize that the war was a mistake and the United States shouldn't be there anyway. As if his decisions weren't insulting our intelligence enough, Obama's administration throughout this year had been trying to find ways for the Iraqi government to allow our troops to remain at war in that country beyond the deadline that Bush had set along with his Iraqi counterparts (if they can be truly considered as such). His administration's efforts were unsuccessful. But apparently leaving Iraq according to Bush's timetable (while leaving the largest mercenary force in existence behind) will undoubtedly be presented to us as Obama fulfilling another campaign promise. (That sentence should end with an exclamation point but I feel a period is more suitable since it is so serious of an insult to the Americans who can't stomach being involved in the war any longer and the Iraqis who will continue to suffer from this situation.)
The "change" that so many people had hoped for in 2008 only materialized in rhetorical terms. Obama's administration has sat by and allowed record numbers of Americans to lose their homes thanks to a Wallstreet scheme which was able to be hatched thanks in large part to laws created, or eliminated, during the previous Democrat hero's administration, Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton, the man who is now coordinating relief for the country of Haiti, stood before the unlucky people of that country and said that he felt bad about the results of some policies that he had supported that had caused more harm than good in Haiti. Bill Clinton mastered the art of showing empathy. Maybe one day he will apologize for how almost two years after the earthquake, Jimmy Carter plans on reporting to the U.S. that the only rebuilding he has seen during his visit to Haiti is the rebuilding of mansions for the rich. I guess if we are to follow the line of thought of a certain Christian evangelist we can imagine that this misfortune has something to do with a punishment for voodoo practices.
With protests springing up all over the country, it should be obvious that change hasn't come with the election of Obama. The big shots on Wallstreet have become richer than ever and new poverty statistics show that there exists more poverty than we were previously led to believe. But there is more freedom, no really there is, more freedom of money to influence our politics. Surely that should make up for all of the freedoms that have been twisted and abused during the past decade or so! "Only in America" as Don King, the boxing promoter, or puppet master, likes to say with a smile. Yes, only in America is the incumbent president's goal of raising a billion dollars for a campaign viewed as an admirable record to be proud of.
We can feel good about showing off to the world what our freedom to protest looks like. We see thousands of arrests and veterans being shot at with projectiles as less than embarrassing. We like to talk a good game when we pick and choose which country to lecture about human rights, but I know we are talking to ourselves. When we interfere in the internal affairs of a country in Latin America while claiming that Chavez is doing so without any evidence, we do so because we tell ourselves that we are better, more just.
The people of this country are beginning to realize that the promise of change will not come simply by voting for the politician who makes the beautiful promises that we feel comfortable hearing. People are tired of the silly gimmicks of political campaigners such as Romney's saying that he will eliminate much of the foreign aid that this country pays for. That quite simply wouldn't be likely to happen. Most of what we hear as being foreign aid goes eventually to aiding U.S. corporations operating in foreign countries. The "economic hit man" John Perkins clearly explained the situation of Indonesia. U.S. investment in that country went to build everything necessary for the oil companies to conduct business. The oil has been extracted, billions of dollars were made for the investors, and a few powerful Indonesians became rich too. The vast majority of Indonesians have gained virtually nothing from the natural resources of their country. They have been subjected to Washington backed strong men for decades with no way out. Strong men, dictators, anything we'd like to call them, it doesn't matter. They all are working more for their personal fortunes at their people's expense. It is all just fine with the U.S. since those strong men work in the interests of capital.
The lofty claims about human rights that the U.S. presidents and others officials in the government ring hollow. The U.S. power only finds problems with leaders of countries willing to buck the trend of U.S. dominance. The most clear example is the country of Cuba. Having fought for its independence from Spain, it ended up having to live with a constitution written while under U.S. occupation. After the former colonizer was cut out of the equation, the mighty power to its north took the place of master on the island, retaining the right to intervene militarily when it felt that its interests were threatened.
So it was like this until 1959 when Fidel Castro's revolutionaries with the support of the people took control of the island's destiny. In one of his first visits to the United States, Fidel made it clear that the independent nation of Cuba wasn't looking for handouts from the U.S., only respect. At the same time our government realized that this wasn't an ordinary power grab, but a move to actual independence. From almost the first day and ever since, Washington has tried almost every trick under the sun to erase this independently minded government that has become an example of a country that resists imperialism.
There is no doubt that the lives of the Cuban people have been made more difficult due to the punishment handed out in the form of the embargo, a punishment for choosing independence. But there is no doubt that in many areas thanks to their independence, their lives are better than in most underdeveloped countries that have opted for the path of being a client state. Decades of dictatorships imposed on Latin America by Washington has led to societies that suffer from violence, hunger, homelessness, and exploitation of natural resources by American corporations. Death squads trained by American military specialists have left thousands dead. Attempts at democracy were crushed time and time again by assassinations. kidnappings, and bribery. The people of Latin America over the past few short years have been electing governments which are trying to break the chains that have held back the dreams of the continent for centuries. Never has there been more unity in Latin America than there is at this moment in history. The countries are forming new alliances to develop themselves in ways that will ultimately help their forgotten majorities live better lives.
All of this to me is quite inspiring. Much is made of what we refer to as the "Arab Spring" here in the U.S. But this rejection of puppet dictators began over a decade ago in Latin America with the election of Hugo Chavez. Now the leaders of Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, along with Cuba are working together in harmony. Of course to Washington, this is a disaster. Not all of the leaders are as outspoken as Chavez, who has earned the spot of enemy #1 in our corporate press, but all are implementing programs to help the people who had been left out of the plans of past governments who were happy to follow the orders from the north.
It took a long time for those people to accomplish such a feat. It seems that the American people are showing symptoms of growing tired of governments which work at the service of mighty corporations while making life more difficult for the majority of working people. In cities all across the United States, people are finding ways to at least voice their disappointment with the status quo. We are certainly not bold enough yet to take the chance of voting for a candidate who isn't bought and paid for by the corporations, but if the regular politicians don't find the backbone to go against their wealthy sponsors, eventually a candidate who isn't supposed to win, similar to how Chavez was elected in Venezuela, will be chosen by the people. At that point the country will be able to begin the process of making a society that actually matches the rhetoric that we too often pretend to believe out of convenience.
As much as we like to tell ourselves that we are an example for the world to follow, I think that the world has provided some great examples for us to take note of. It's Shameful that we accept living with the knowledge that we have to choose the lessor of two evils. The people of Latin America have shown us that a better future is possible and the voices that were once drowned out by the powerful can be heard.
Back when Bush was still president and the 2008 election was in full swing, Obama was able to take away the Democrat party's nomination from Hillary Clinton's seemingly probable role. This was possible due to the positions each had taken in regards to the war Bush decided to start in Iraq. Hillary Clinton attempted to pretend that her vote to give Bush the power to wage war without Congress giving him the the authority to do so, was done believing that war wasn't necessarily going to be pursued. She supported the war, regardless what she tried to say during the campaign. Obama put himself on the side of the people's sentiment against the war. He was immune to having to defend himself as Hillary tried since it was a vote he never had to cast. It was an easy position for him to take and it impressed more voters. Obama cruised to victory at a time when most people would have chosen almost anyone who seemed to offer a break from the ignorant policies of the Bush administration.
The new president came in appearing as a man who would finally do the people's business instead of working on behalf of the powers that had already become one with both political parties. His bold beginning was to order the closing down of the black hole like torture chamber in occupied Guantanamo Cuba. But hindsight is 20/20. The prison remains, as does the occupation of that part of Cuba.
He then decided to seem like he was going to go farther than anyone else had and create a health care system that was dedicated to allowing health care to be reached by all Americans. But quickly it became obvious that he had no intentions in eliminating the main obstacle to such a system, the insurance companies. We are told by those like the president that we have to do what is possible and although we know that there is no way to defend the fact that this health care system is one designed for profit and since it is so, people are refused necessary care and those who are covered by insurance are often financially ruined by the prices that are unpayable. We are expected to rationalize what we know is wrong. We are supposed to believe that his health care accomplishment, which gives more business, more profits to the very companies that hold people hostage to policies that would be laughable if they were actually a joke and it wasn't such a despicable arrangement, is a major victory for the people.
"Bush's War" quickly became Obama's war and he decided to hide behind "what the generals think" as if his civilian presidency wasn't actually able to tell the generals what was good for the country. We are supposed to imagine that because he campaigned as if he was against the war, we are somehow waging one in a way that it wouldn't have been waged had John McCain won the election. That actually isn't even the point.
The point is that he was elected because people had come to realize that the war was a mistake and the United States shouldn't be there anyway. As if his decisions weren't insulting our intelligence enough, Obama's administration throughout this year had been trying to find ways for the Iraqi government to allow our troops to remain at war in that country beyond the deadline that Bush had set along with his Iraqi counterparts (if they can be truly considered as such). His administration's efforts were unsuccessful. But apparently leaving Iraq according to Bush's timetable (while leaving the largest mercenary force in existence behind) will undoubtedly be presented to us as Obama fulfilling another campaign promise. (That sentence should end with an exclamation point but I feel a period is more suitable since it is so serious of an insult to the Americans who can't stomach being involved in the war any longer and the Iraqis who will continue to suffer from this situation.)
The "change" that so many people had hoped for in 2008 only materialized in rhetorical terms. Obama's administration has sat by and allowed record numbers of Americans to lose their homes thanks to a Wallstreet scheme which was able to be hatched thanks in large part to laws created, or eliminated, during the previous Democrat hero's administration, Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton, the man who is now coordinating relief for the country of Haiti, stood before the unlucky people of that country and said that he felt bad about the results of some policies that he had supported that had caused more harm than good in Haiti. Bill Clinton mastered the art of showing empathy. Maybe one day he will apologize for how almost two years after the earthquake, Jimmy Carter plans on reporting to the U.S. that the only rebuilding he has seen during his visit to Haiti is the rebuilding of mansions for the rich. I guess if we are to follow the line of thought of a certain Christian evangelist we can imagine that this misfortune has something to do with a punishment for voodoo practices.
With protests springing up all over the country, it should be obvious that change hasn't come with the election of Obama. The big shots on Wallstreet have become richer than ever and new poverty statistics show that there exists more poverty than we were previously led to believe. But there is more freedom, no really there is, more freedom of money to influence our politics. Surely that should make up for all of the freedoms that have been twisted and abused during the past decade or so! "Only in America" as Don King, the boxing promoter, or puppet master, likes to say with a smile. Yes, only in America is the incumbent president's goal of raising a billion dollars for a campaign viewed as an admirable record to be proud of.
We can feel good about showing off to the world what our freedom to protest looks like. We see thousands of arrests and veterans being shot at with projectiles as less than embarrassing. We like to talk a good game when we pick and choose which country to lecture about human rights, but I know we are talking to ourselves. When we interfere in the internal affairs of a country in Latin America while claiming that Chavez is doing so without any evidence, we do so because we tell ourselves that we are better, more just.
The people of this country are beginning to realize that the promise of change will not come simply by voting for the politician who makes the beautiful promises that we feel comfortable hearing. People are tired of the silly gimmicks of political campaigners such as Romney's saying that he will eliminate much of the foreign aid that this country pays for. That quite simply wouldn't be likely to happen. Most of what we hear as being foreign aid goes eventually to aiding U.S. corporations operating in foreign countries. The "economic hit man" John Perkins clearly explained the situation of Indonesia. U.S. investment in that country went to build everything necessary for the oil companies to conduct business. The oil has been extracted, billions of dollars were made for the investors, and a few powerful Indonesians became rich too. The vast majority of Indonesians have gained virtually nothing from the natural resources of their country. They have been subjected to Washington backed strong men for decades with no way out. Strong men, dictators, anything we'd like to call them, it doesn't matter. They all are working more for their personal fortunes at their people's expense. It is all just fine with the U.S. since those strong men work in the interests of capital.
The lofty claims about human rights that the U.S. presidents and others officials in the government ring hollow. The U.S. power only finds problems with leaders of countries willing to buck the trend of U.S. dominance. The most clear example is the country of Cuba. Having fought for its independence from Spain, it ended up having to live with a constitution written while under U.S. occupation. After the former colonizer was cut out of the equation, the mighty power to its north took the place of master on the island, retaining the right to intervene militarily when it felt that its interests were threatened.
So it was like this until 1959 when Fidel Castro's revolutionaries with the support of the people took control of the island's destiny. In one of his first visits to the United States, Fidel made it clear that the independent nation of Cuba wasn't looking for handouts from the U.S., only respect. At the same time our government realized that this wasn't an ordinary power grab, but a move to actual independence. From almost the first day and ever since, Washington has tried almost every trick under the sun to erase this independently minded government that has become an example of a country that resists imperialism.
There is no doubt that the lives of the Cuban people have been made more difficult due to the punishment handed out in the form of the embargo, a punishment for choosing independence. But there is no doubt that in many areas thanks to their independence, their lives are better than in most underdeveloped countries that have opted for the path of being a client state. Decades of dictatorships imposed on Latin America by Washington has led to societies that suffer from violence, hunger, homelessness, and exploitation of natural resources by American corporations. Death squads trained by American military specialists have left thousands dead. Attempts at democracy were crushed time and time again by assassinations. kidnappings, and bribery. The people of Latin America over the past few short years have been electing governments which are trying to break the chains that have held back the dreams of the continent for centuries. Never has there been more unity in Latin America than there is at this moment in history. The countries are forming new alliances to develop themselves in ways that will ultimately help their forgotten majorities live better lives.
All of this to me is quite inspiring. Much is made of what we refer to as the "Arab Spring" here in the U.S. But this rejection of puppet dictators began over a decade ago in Latin America with the election of Hugo Chavez. Now the leaders of Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, along with Cuba are working together in harmony. Of course to Washington, this is a disaster. Not all of the leaders are as outspoken as Chavez, who has earned the spot of enemy #1 in our corporate press, but all are implementing programs to help the people who had been left out of the plans of past governments who were happy to follow the orders from the north.
It took a long time for those people to accomplish such a feat. It seems that the American people are showing symptoms of growing tired of governments which work at the service of mighty corporations while making life more difficult for the majority of working people. In cities all across the United States, people are finding ways to at least voice their disappointment with the status quo. We are certainly not bold enough yet to take the chance of voting for a candidate who isn't bought and paid for by the corporations, but if the regular politicians don't find the backbone to go against their wealthy sponsors, eventually a candidate who isn't supposed to win, similar to how Chavez was elected in Venezuela, will be chosen by the people. At that point the country will be able to begin the process of making a society that actually matches the rhetoric that we too often pretend to believe out of convenience.
As much as we like to tell ourselves that we are an example for the world to follow, I think that the world has provided some great examples for us to take note of. It's Shameful that we accept living with the knowledge that we have to choose the lessor of two evils. The people of Latin America have shown us that a better future is possible and the voices that were once drowned out by the powerful can be heard.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
"We Are Powerless"
"We are powerless in a foreign country." This was the response from the U.S. representative of the embassy in Israel to the jailed American reporter who was aboard one of the boats that tried to enter Gaza. The ambassador didn't come to visit the fellow American, only a representative from the embassy.
Roberta Jacobson told senators during her confirmation hearing that the administration, through diplomatic channels, would do whatever it could to get Alan Gross released.
What makes the U.S. government believe, or pretend, that without official diplomatic relations with Cuba, it would be in any position at all to secure the release of Mr. Gross? According to the response given to the jailed American reporter in Israel, with which the United States has a seemingly unconditional friendship with, including financial and military ties, the U.S. is powerless in a foreign country!
If the United States wanted to, it could see Mr. Gross back home with his family quickly. He is no more human than the five Cubans who have been imprisoned for over a decade after what the U.S. claims with a straight face as being a fair trial in Miami. Mr. Gross has even expressed a desire for himself to be traded for the five Cubans. Instead, the U.S. finds him to be a convenient excuse not to change its stance towards the island. The excuse is more necessary than ever since while President Obama's claims of not seeing any change on the island is contradicted by Freedom House's most recent published report (Freedom House is one of the groups that takes our tax dollars to come up with unfavorable reports based on interviews with ordinary Cuban people on the island) and the remarkable comment by the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, William Burns. Burns said "Cuba appears to have taken a positive step by allowing its citizens to buy and sell homes," which is an admission of things changing and recognition of something positive.
OK. I know that by reading the inside of my passport I am subject to the laws of the countries that I visit. I also know that there are political issues that affect the U.S.' willingness or unwillingness to help its citizens being held in other countries. For that reason I am willing to state that I find it unbelievable that the U.S. is doing what Roberta Jacobson claimed during her confirmation hearing. Any observer, whether it be the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles or a congressman who probably doesn't support the embargo, would agree that a swap for the Cuban five for Alan Gross could happen. The problem isn't that the United States is powerless, it is that is lacking the political will to break free from the influence of the extremists in Miami.
Once the clownish extremists are brushed aside as they should be, the people of the U.S. and Cuba, as well as their respective governments, can begin a cooperative relationship that is mutually beneficial and could potentially have a positive impact for the people of the entire hemisphere.
Roberta Jacobson told senators during her confirmation hearing that the administration, through diplomatic channels, would do whatever it could to get Alan Gross released.
What makes the U.S. government believe, or pretend, that without official diplomatic relations with Cuba, it would be in any position at all to secure the release of Mr. Gross? According to the response given to the jailed American reporter in Israel, with which the United States has a seemingly unconditional friendship with, including financial and military ties, the U.S. is powerless in a foreign country!
If the United States wanted to, it could see Mr. Gross back home with his family quickly. He is no more human than the five Cubans who have been imprisoned for over a decade after what the U.S. claims with a straight face as being a fair trial in Miami. Mr. Gross has even expressed a desire for himself to be traded for the five Cubans. Instead, the U.S. finds him to be a convenient excuse not to change its stance towards the island. The excuse is more necessary than ever since while President Obama's claims of not seeing any change on the island is contradicted by Freedom House's most recent published report (Freedom House is one of the groups that takes our tax dollars to come up with unfavorable reports based on interviews with ordinary Cuban people on the island) and the remarkable comment by the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, William Burns. Burns said "Cuba appears to have taken a positive step by allowing its citizens to buy and sell homes," which is an admission of things changing and recognition of something positive.
OK. I know that by reading the inside of my passport I am subject to the laws of the countries that I visit. I also know that there are political issues that affect the U.S.' willingness or unwillingness to help its citizens being held in other countries. For that reason I am willing to state that I find it unbelievable that the U.S. is doing what Roberta Jacobson claimed during her confirmation hearing. Any observer, whether it be the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles or a congressman who probably doesn't support the embargo, would agree that a swap for the Cuban five for Alan Gross could happen. The problem isn't that the United States is powerless, it is that is lacking the political will to break free from the influence of the extremists in Miami.
Once the clownish extremists are brushed aside as they should be, the people of the U.S. and Cuba, as well as their respective governments, can begin a cooperative relationship that is mutually beneficial and could potentially have a positive impact for the people of the entire hemisphere.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)