Does anyone remember on February 22, 2011 Fidel Castro warned of a pending NATO invasion of Libya? Does anyone remember his assertions being brushed aside as absurd? Fidel's predictions were correct and now the future of Libya is uncertain.
What is certain is the press is acting in its usual manner. It publishes articles about the possibility of Gaddafi seeking refuge in Venezuela or Cuba without any evidence to suggest it. It continues to portray NATO as concerned with human rights. But now we find out that Libya's intelligence had worked closely in previous years with the CIA and MI5 in the so-called "War against terror" in the interrogation of captured suspects.
What about the United States' desire to bring Gaddafi before the International Criminal Court? Does the US support the court? If so, why not become a participant? Is the US fearful of its own leaders being brought to trial there? Of course, as it always is with the United States, "do as I say, not as I do."
So as the international press continues in its efforts to portray Fidel Castro as an out of touch conspiracy theorist, NATO has broken a country it had once collaborated with and in the process, confirmed the warnings given by Fidel Castro on February 22, 2011.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
An Example For the World
Bringing up the dirty aspects of the Bush administration often brings cries about old news. In the sense that he is no longer the president it is. But the unfinished legacy of war which he started goes on until this day so it isn't is still quite current. The Obama administration decided to proceed with the policy of war in Iraq and Afganistan and lives are still being lost needlessly on both sides. The legacy of death and destruction carries on with no foreseeable end.
Dick Cheney, who spearheaded candidate Bush's search for a running mate and found himself, was one of the most detestable figures in the crowd of many who worked in the Bush administration. He has always been one of the most extremely cold actors who supported the most extreme policies that have earned the scorn of almost the entire world. Unflinching in his forceful defiance of what is good and rational, he has no qualms about going on TV and speaking arrogantly about his support and direction of actions that defy the collective conscience of humanity.
He steps on the feet of former administration officials in the same arrogant manner that he stepped on the worries of the American people. He says that he would do the same things that he did during his time as vice-president all over again if given the chance. In his mind, he sees no wrong in torture, lying to the world to justify war, or maintaining secret prisons. He leaves no apologies, none.
Knowing that he hadn't in the past cared too much for the truth, there is reason enough to wonder if what he has included in his new book is itself honest. Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, has already stated that the tales told by Cheney about his involvement in Powell's departure from the administration are not even remotely accurate. Wilkerson describes Cheney's assertion that he himself had something to do with Powell leaving as "utter nonsense." He says that from the beginning, Powell informed his inner team of his intentions of only serving one term. Powell, in spite of the terrible mistakes he allowed himself to become a part of, suggested that the former vice-president & co. hadn't planned for anything after the fall of Bagdad. This unnecessary tragedy should not have happened in the first place, but to think that they hadn't even planned enough to prepare for what they were causing is something that only made the situation worse. It is scary thinking that such madmen were in control of the mightiest military machine the world has ever known.
Even former president Bush claims to have had sickening feelings upon learning that weapons of mass destruction weren't found in Iraq. It is hard to fathom that he honestly didn't know this was the case beforehand, but at least he has the sense to recognize the disappointment of so many people who supported the war based on that very rationale. Cheney though, still maintains that the United States did the right thing. This delusional, arrogant man, according to Wilkerson is "the only person Cheney does not seem to find fault with is Cheney."
Isn't it time yet for this man, this cruel individual to be brought before the courts along with his cohorts? Isn't it time for the good people of the United States to demand that he faces justice? How long can these types of individuals be protected under the excuse that it is time to look to the future? How can the United States pretend to want to learn from its mistakes if it isn't willing to face up to them? When will the United States decide to set a good example, as it claims to be, for the world?
Dick Cheney, who spearheaded candidate Bush's search for a running mate and found himself, was one of the most detestable figures in the crowd of many who worked in the Bush administration. He has always been one of the most extremely cold actors who supported the most extreme policies that have earned the scorn of almost the entire world. Unflinching in his forceful defiance of what is good and rational, he has no qualms about going on TV and speaking arrogantly about his support and direction of actions that defy the collective conscience of humanity.
He steps on the feet of former administration officials in the same arrogant manner that he stepped on the worries of the American people. He says that he would do the same things that he did during his time as vice-president all over again if given the chance. In his mind, he sees no wrong in torture, lying to the world to justify war, or maintaining secret prisons. He leaves no apologies, none.
Knowing that he hadn't in the past cared too much for the truth, there is reason enough to wonder if what he has included in his new book is itself honest. Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, has already stated that the tales told by Cheney about his involvement in Powell's departure from the administration are not even remotely accurate. Wilkerson describes Cheney's assertion that he himself had something to do with Powell leaving as "utter nonsense." He says that from the beginning, Powell informed his inner team of his intentions of only serving one term. Powell, in spite of the terrible mistakes he allowed himself to become a part of, suggested that the former vice-president & co. hadn't planned for anything after the fall of Bagdad. This unnecessary tragedy should not have happened in the first place, but to think that they hadn't even planned enough to prepare for what they were causing is something that only made the situation worse. It is scary thinking that such madmen were in control of the mightiest military machine the world has ever known.
Even former president Bush claims to have had sickening feelings upon learning that weapons of mass destruction weren't found in Iraq. It is hard to fathom that he honestly didn't know this was the case beforehand, but at least he has the sense to recognize the disappointment of so many people who supported the war based on that very rationale. Cheney though, still maintains that the United States did the right thing. This delusional, arrogant man, according to Wilkerson is "the only person Cheney does not seem to find fault with is Cheney."
Isn't it time yet for this man, this cruel individual to be brought before the courts along with his cohorts? Isn't it time for the good people of the United States to demand that he faces justice? How long can these types of individuals be protected under the excuse that it is time to look to the future? How can the United States pretend to want to learn from its mistakes if it isn't willing to face up to them? When will the United States decide to set a good example, as it claims to be, for the world?
Since the video didn't work.....
The constant attempts in the US media to portray Cuba as a repressive state consistently fall flat. Given the coverage in the media gives to the capitalist countries' harsh responses to their own protesters, always in defense of the government, these attempts to blow out of proportion events in Cuba are amazingly silly.
Given the utter failure of the video of the four women protest that was meant to show the harsh violence of the government, obviously showing the opposite as they were cheered by the cameraman and jeered by the regular people, could this be a set up? Could the media be withholding the video of this event? Are they waiting for many people to explain the probable incredulous nature of this article only to release a video later? If so, then the media should be applauded (at a later date) for their clever chosen release of information.
Are we to believe, once again, the reports of the paid dissidents, whose job is to do just this, create stories for the media? Have these "well-known" dissidents not been provided with the cell phone cameras to catch this on video? What happened to the $20 million Washington just approved? Is it held up in the pockets of the usual suspects in Miami? Tamayo himself said that this story could not be independently confirmed? Strange statement from Tamayo. We are supposed to believe that these "reporters" in Cuba ARE independent (in reality is a stretch)! But of course that, it could be an accidental admission on the part of Tamayo that these guys who send their "reports" to El Nuevo Herald, Radio Marti, and their Miami spokespersons aren't "independent" at all.
Well was an article in the Miami Herald, and Mr. Tamayo is the author, so the headline is enough. Who cares about verifying the story. The foreign press in Havana, as he said, didn't report on this, but we should rest assured that it will get plenty of coverage (for a moment) in Miami.
You can read the article I'm referring to by clicking on the link below.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/29/2380921/dissidents-say-police-used-tear.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1WX7UNv8e
Given the utter failure of the video of the four women protest that was meant to show the harsh violence of the government, obviously showing the opposite as they were cheered by the cameraman and jeered by the regular people, could this be a set up? Could the media be withholding the video of this event? Are they waiting for many people to explain the probable incredulous nature of this article only to release a video later? If so, then the media should be applauded (at a later date) for their clever chosen release of information.
Are we to believe, once again, the reports of the paid dissidents, whose job is to do just this, create stories for the media? Have these "well-known" dissidents not been provided with the cell phone cameras to catch this on video? What happened to the $20 million Washington just approved? Is it held up in the pockets of the usual suspects in Miami? Tamayo himself said that this story could not be independently confirmed? Strange statement from Tamayo. We are supposed to believe that these "reporters" in Cuba ARE independent (in reality is a stretch)! But of course that, it could be an accidental admission on the part of Tamayo that these guys who send their "reports" to El Nuevo Herald, Radio Marti, and their Miami spokespersons aren't "independent" at all.
Well was an article in the Miami Herald, and Mr. Tamayo is the author, so the headline is enough. Who cares about verifying the story. The foreign press in Havana, as he said, didn't report on this, but we should rest assured that it will get plenty of coverage (for a moment) in Miami.
You can read the article I'm referring to by clicking on the link below.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/29/2380921/dissidents-say-police-used-tear.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1WX7UNv8e
Sunday, August 28, 2011
A Bit of American History (About Human Rights)
The US government almost constantly justifies its actions, whether it be sanctions or war, with the reason of human rights. Although it is a noble issue, it is one that many find harder and harder to believe, and with good reason. Here is a quote from Policy Planning Study 23, authored by George Keenan for the State Department in 1948. Given our history of the years since then, one must scratch there heads a bit when we hear our government officials bring up their yearning for "human rights".
"we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the world's population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this disparity... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming: and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives...We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we will have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by these idealistic slogans, the better."
"we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the world's population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this disparity... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming: and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives...We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we will have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by these idealistic slogans, the better."
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Response to Mauricio Claver-Carone
This is my response to Mauricio Claver-Carone's editorial about the Cuban Adjustment Act in the Miami Herald on Aug. 21, 2011.:
The notion of "trickle down' as it meant in the wikileaks cable being compared to the "trickle down economics" of Reagan is laughable.
If the Act is to be repealed, then so be it. There should be equal treatment for people coming from different countries. Along with the Act, the wet-foot/ dry-foot policy should be eliminated also. It serves no logical reason other than to provide photo-ops used to bolster a phony argument about people trying to escape, and meanwhile we don't care to pretend the same about Hatians (for just one example).
Shamefully, Rivera isn't proposing this amendment based on any attempts at fairness. He simply follows a long history of those in Congress trying to make the Cuban people on the island suffer. This from a man who can't even report his own income correctly, yet expects to be considered "prestigious" by the people and his peers.
If the Act were to be repealed, I would oppose it being applied retroactively, which would show the mean spiritedness of these Miami extremists. Reneging on what the newer arrivals were offered wouldn't be fair and certainly wouldn't be appreciated by them.
The silliness about "sustaining their persecutors" is obvious nonsense and part of the tall tales coming from the usual suspects. Obviously they weren't persecuted as they travel back to the island with no problems whatsoever. That should blow that whole line of thought right out of the water.
Certainly it has become easier to travel and give a "cursory nod" to a relative, but taking a quick look at the lines of people travelling there will be enough to see that the incredible amounts of luggage being taken, doesn't seem like they are "cursory nods" but honest aid for families. Actually, I believe that the people staying at beach resorts often are the ones travelling at the expense of our "democracy programs", handing out a little cash to a few people willing to be employed at the service of the US and using a vacation on the taxpayers' expense as a cover for their nonsense.
Here Mr. Claver-Carone says that Obama's goal was commendable, yet in 2008 said his biggest mistake was allowing Cubans to do so whenever they want. He assumes the role of the judge who decides who and how often people should be able to visit family. It is to be expected from him and others who hide behind the rhetoric of caring for the Cuban people while constantly searching for ways to make Cubans on both sides more miserable.
Some call these people "wicked-minded". It is very possible. At best they are dishonest hypocrites, not at all interested in the Cuban people, while they themselves have made careers off of the situation between the two countries, being everything from lobbyists to politicians to even people who have blown up planes and seek shelter in the bowels of Miami. These are not and never will be the champions of the Cuban people.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/21/2366991/amend-the-cuban-adjustment-act.html#ixzz1Vt2barni
The notion of "trickle down' as it meant in the wikileaks cable being compared to the "trickle down economics" of Reagan is laughable.
If the Act is to be repealed, then so be it. There should be equal treatment for people coming from different countries. Along with the Act, the wet-foot/ dry-foot policy should be eliminated also. It serves no logical reason other than to provide photo-ops used to bolster a phony argument about people trying to escape, and meanwhile we don't care to pretend the same about Hatians (for just one example).
Shamefully, Rivera isn't proposing this amendment based on any attempts at fairness. He simply follows a long history of those in Congress trying to make the Cuban people on the island suffer. This from a man who can't even report his own income correctly, yet expects to be considered "prestigious" by the people and his peers.
If the Act were to be repealed, I would oppose it being applied retroactively, which would show the mean spiritedness of these Miami extremists. Reneging on what the newer arrivals were offered wouldn't be fair and certainly wouldn't be appreciated by them.
The silliness about "sustaining their persecutors" is obvious nonsense and part of the tall tales coming from the usual suspects. Obviously they weren't persecuted as they travel back to the island with no problems whatsoever. That should blow that whole line of thought right out of the water.
Certainly it has become easier to travel and give a "cursory nod" to a relative, but taking a quick look at the lines of people travelling there will be enough to see that the incredible amounts of luggage being taken, doesn't seem like they are "cursory nods" but honest aid for families. Actually, I believe that the people staying at beach resorts often are the ones travelling at the expense of our "democracy programs", handing out a little cash to a few people willing to be employed at the service of the US and using a vacation on the taxpayers' expense as a cover for their nonsense.
Here Mr. Claver-Carone says that Obama's goal was commendable, yet in 2008 said his biggest mistake was allowing Cubans to do so whenever they want. He assumes the role of the judge who decides who and how often people should be able to visit family. It is to be expected from him and others who hide behind the rhetoric of caring for the Cuban people while constantly searching for ways to make Cubans on both sides more miserable.
Some call these people "wicked-minded". It is very possible. At best they are dishonest hypocrites, not at all interested in the Cuban people, while they themselves have made careers off of the situation between the two countries, being everything from lobbyists to politicians to even people who have blown up planes and seek shelter in the bowels of Miami. These are not and never will be the champions of the Cuban people.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/21/2366991/amend-the-cuban-adjustment-act.html#ixzz1Vt2barni
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Miami Herald's Crocodile Tears
There was a recent article in the Miami Herald about a young lady who was denied entry to Cuba to visit her grandmother. It is unfortunate that this young lady isn't able to visit, in this case apparently due to a decision by the Cuban government. What is striking are these crocodile tears shed by the powers of South Florida.
How many people were restricted from travelling to visit sick relatives on the island due to the Bush policy which restricted travel to Cuba once every three years? Along with the three year wait, family was redefined so as only to include parent, child, and sibling. Also done away with were trips for humanitarian purposes.
This young lady in the article, had Obama not expanded the definition of family to include all family, need not have even applied since "grandmother" wasn't included in "family". Ironically, this is the same policy that the editors of the Miami Herald suggested very recently we should go back to.
The proposals of Diaz-Balart, Rivera, and Rubio should be opposed. The unnecessary and spiteful separation of families should be opposed. If we question the decision of the Cuban government on this issue, we should certainly scrutinize the decisions of our own government. We can't affect Cuba's decision, but we are supposed to be able to utilize our "democracy" to make sure that our representatives actually represent us.
Hopefully, the hints at changing the policies in Cuba to something more fitting to today's circumstances are realized. Equally, hopefully the US doesn't choose to move backwards on this same issue. Mr. Lesnick is probably correct, that travel between the two countries will look a lot more like travel between the US and other countries in the hemisphere. To accomplish this, the crazy wet foot dry foot policy will need to either be eliminated or extended to others in this hemisphere. My guess is that there is a lot more political will to eliminate it as opposed to allowing all of the others who come without visas simply for economic reasons like most Cubans
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/14/2359558/many-cubans-living-abroad-cant.html#ixzz1VJtnfyjo
How many people were restricted from travelling to visit sick relatives on the island due to the Bush policy which restricted travel to Cuba once every three years? Along with the three year wait, family was redefined so as only to include parent, child, and sibling. Also done away with were trips for humanitarian purposes.
This young lady in the article, had Obama not expanded the definition of family to include all family, need not have even applied since "grandmother" wasn't included in "family". Ironically, this is the same policy that the editors of the Miami Herald suggested very recently we should go back to.
The proposals of Diaz-Balart, Rivera, and Rubio should be opposed. The unnecessary and spiteful separation of families should be opposed. If we question the decision of the Cuban government on this issue, we should certainly scrutinize the decisions of our own government. We can't affect Cuba's decision, but we are supposed to be able to utilize our "democracy" to make sure that our representatives actually represent us.
Hopefully, the hints at changing the policies in Cuba to something more fitting to today's circumstances are realized. Equally, hopefully the US doesn't choose to move backwards on this same issue. Mr. Lesnick is probably correct, that travel between the two countries will look a lot more like travel between the US and other countries in the hemisphere. To accomplish this, the crazy wet foot dry foot policy will need to either be eliminated or extended to others in this hemisphere. My guess is that there is a lot more political will to eliminate it as opposed to allowing all of the others who come without visas simply for economic reasons like most Cubans
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/14/2359558/many-cubans-living-abroad-cant.html#ixzz1VJtnfyjo
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Mr. Montaner Shoots Blanks
Since Mr. Carlos Montaner decided to use the term "shoot" in his title, I figured that might be an appropriate term to describe his lack of powerful ammunition in his pistol loaded with nonsense, the pistol being his opinion piece in today's Miami Herald. The following is my response to him which is followed by a link to his silliness:
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
March to Brussels
The Spanish protesters who headed to the streets two months ago, have decided to march all the way to Brussels. They plan to march to the heart of the European Union, through three countries. If and when they do get there, they will likely make it obvious to the world that what the "democracies" really don't care to pay attention to are the people.
There is no question that the European Union is choosing a path that caters to the wealthy corporations and banks just as the United States does. Democracy in our countries is something of an exercise which consists of slanderous campaigns and ends with a vote. The idea that people are equal is one that debunked by the reality of bankers and corporate giants given full attention by the elected officials while the poor in the streets demands fall on deaf ears.
Billions of dollars that are always ready to fund things like wars are taken from the pockets of the working people who then have to listen to the officials explain why cuts in social services are necessary. It is garbage. It is unjust. The wars which are dressed up as humane actions, generously on the behalf of other peoples are expensive and destructive. They serve to open markets for those giants who have the ears of the one in charge. Societies are destroyed or setback decades and lives are destroyed. All this while the "democratic" countries who claim to defend human rights do so at the expense of the people that they ignore.
Hopefully sooner than later, the voices of the people will become so loud and so strong that they can no longer be ignored. Maybe this march will not achieve its goals, but it will be heard. It is just a small step towards the day when the people finally break off the shackles of their so called democracies and get to have a government that actually acts on behalf of its people. Good luck to those who are marching.
There is no question that the European Union is choosing a path that caters to the wealthy corporations and banks just as the United States does. Democracy in our countries is something of an exercise which consists of slanderous campaigns and ends with a vote. The idea that people are equal is one that debunked by the reality of bankers and corporate giants given full attention by the elected officials while the poor in the streets demands fall on deaf ears.
Billions of dollars that are always ready to fund things like wars are taken from the pockets of the working people who then have to listen to the officials explain why cuts in social services are necessary. It is garbage. It is unjust. The wars which are dressed up as humane actions, generously on the behalf of other peoples are expensive and destructive. They serve to open markets for those giants who have the ears of the one in charge. Societies are destroyed or setback decades and lives are destroyed. All this while the "democratic" countries who claim to defend human rights do so at the expense of the people that they ignore.
Hopefully sooner than later, the voices of the people will become so loud and so strong that they can no longer be ignored. Maybe this march will not achieve its goals, but it will be heard. It is just a small step towards the day when the people finally break off the shackles of their so called democracies and get to have a government that actually acts on behalf of its people. Good luck to those who are marching.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
La arrogancia obvia de Jaime Suchlicki
(Traduccion por Google)
Jaime Suchlicki agregó su opinión a las páginas del diario The Miami Herald esta mañana. Da a la gente una buena imagen en cuanto a cómo los extremistas anti-Cuba perciben la responsibilidad de los Estados Unidos en América Latina. Es útil tomar nota de su apoyo hacia el exterior del imperialismo de EE.UU. y sus deseos de dominar la región. Llaman abiertamente a socavar la democracia y la soberanÃa de Venezuela como a él le gustarÃa ver a los EE.UU. mediante la organización de la oposición a Chávez intervenir en las próximas elecciones de Venezuela. Curiosamente, sin embargo, los EE.UU. acusa a menudo, aunque no demuestra, que Venezuela interfiera en los asuntos de sus paÃses vecinos. Esto es increÃblemente hipócrita. Sr. Suchlicki y muchos miembros del gobierno de los Estados Unidos de alguna manera creen que interferir en los asuntos internos de otros paÃses es algo de un derecho que los Estados Unidos, y sólo los Estados Unidos. Por lo que sugiere que Venezuela ha amenazado los intereses de los Estados Unidos, que sólo serÃa correcto si él quiere decir que los intereses de las empresas que desean entrar y dominar a otros paÃses son sinónimo de los intereses del pueblo estadounidense. Los intereses del pueblo norteamericano ha sido ahogada por el poder corporativo y no hay nada en absoluto que amenaza a Venezuela hasta el pueblo estadounidense está preocupado. En realidad, si nada se puede decir de Venezuela y los intereses del pueblo estadounidense, serÃa positivo. Venezuela ha negociado con ciertas partes de los Estados Unidos para calefacción con descuento que ha hecho de la vida de algunos estadounidenses más fácil. De ninguna manera tiene el promedio de América sido afectados por Venezuela con Chávez como su presidente.
La unica idea correcta de Sr. Suchlicki es el hecho de que Cuba se ha diversificado el comercio más de lo que habÃa en el momento del colapso de la Unión Soviética. SerÃa un duro golpe para Cuba si la relación con Venezuela serÃa más del agrado de los EE.UU., pero como Cuba ahora tiene relaciónes positivas con la mayorÃa de los paÃses de América Latina, probablemente no serÃa en interés de Venezuela a dar la espalda a Cuba no importa quién estarÃa en la presidencia. Los venezolanos se benefician del apoyo de los servicios médicos, asà como la cooperación educativa.
La inclusión de Irán en su análisis no tiene otro propósito que vincular a Chávez con un paÃs al que los estadounidenses se supone que temer, gracias a una campaña mediática que ha tratado de preparar las mentes de los estadounidenses para una posible confrontación militar que, sin duda, seria como la invasión de Irak. Como supimos después, a pesar de que era fácil saber antes de que la mayorÃa de las razones de la guerra con Irak eran falsas.
Los Estados Unidos tiene que mantenerse al margen de los asuntos de otras naciones. Si llegara a tener relaciones respetuosas con las demás naciones, serÃa en condiciones de dar consejos sin tratar de imponer sus deseos a los demás. La arrogancia de la polÃtica exterior de los Estados Unidos no sirve para nada bueno para el pueblo norteamericano, ni tampoco traer buenos sentimientos de todo el mundo para nuestro paÃs.
Jaime Suchlicki agregó su opinión a las páginas del diario The Miami Herald esta mañana. Da a la gente una buena imagen en cuanto a cómo los extremistas anti-Cuba perciben la responsibilidad de los Estados Unidos en América Latina. Es útil tomar nota de su apoyo hacia el exterior del imperialismo de EE.UU. y sus deseos de dominar la región. Llaman abiertamente a socavar la democracia y la soberanÃa de Venezuela como a él le gustarÃa ver a los EE.UU. mediante la organización de la oposición a Chávez intervenir en las próximas elecciones de Venezuela. Curiosamente, sin embargo, los EE.UU. acusa a menudo, aunque no demuestra, que Venezuela interfiera en los asuntos de sus paÃses vecinos. Esto es increÃblemente hipócrita. Sr. Suchlicki y muchos miembros del gobierno de los Estados Unidos de alguna manera creen que interferir en los asuntos internos de otros paÃses es algo de un derecho que los Estados Unidos, y sólo los Estados Unidos. Por lo que sugiere que Venezuela ha amenazado los intereses de los Estados Unidos, que sólo serÃa correcto si él quiere decir que los intereses de las empresas que desean entrar y dominar a otros paÃses son sinónimo de los intereses del pueblo estadounidense. Los intereses del pueblo norteamericano ha sido ahogada por el poder corporativo y no hay nada en absoluto que amenaza a Venezuela hasta el pueblo estadounidense está preocupado. En realidad, si nada se puede decir de Venezuela y los intereses del pueblo estadounidense, serÃa positivo. Venezuela ha negociado con ciertas partes de los Estados Unidos para calefacción con descuento que ha hecho de la vida de algunos estadounidenses más fácil. De ninguna manera tiene el promedio de América sido afectados por Venezuela con Chávez como su presidente.
La unica idea correcta de Sr. Suchlicki es el hecho de que Cuba se ha diversificado el comercio más de lo que habÃa en el momento del colapso de la Unión Soviética. SerÃa un duro golpe para Cuba si la relación con Venezuela serÃa más del agrado de los EE.UU., pero como Cuba ahora tiene relaciónes positivas con la mayorÃa de los paÃses de América Latina, probablemente no serÃa en interés de Venezuela a dar la espalda a Cuba no importa quién estarÃa en la presidencia. Los venezolanos se benefician del apoyo de los servicios médicos, asà como la cooperación educativa.
La inclusión de Irán en su análisis no tiene otro propósito que vincular a Chávez con un paÃs al que los estadounidenses se supone que temer, gracias a una campaña mediática que ha tratado de preparar las mentes de los estadounidenses para una posible confrontación militar que, sin duda, seria como la invasión de Irak. Como supimos después, a pesar de que era fácil saber antes de que la mayorÃa de las razones de la guerra con Irak eran falsas.
Los Estados Unidos tiene que mantenerse al margen de los asuntos de otras naciones. Si llegara a tener relaciones respetuosas con las demás naciones, serÃa en condiciones de dar consejos sin tratar de imponer sus deseos a los demás. La arrogancia de la polÃtica exterior de los Estados Unidos no sirve para nada bueno para el pueblo norteamericano, ni tampoco traer buenos sentimientos de todo el mundo para nuestro paÃs.
Jaime Suchlicki's Obvious Arrogance
Jaime Suchlicki added his opinion to the pages of the Miami Herald this morning. It gives people a good picture as to how the anti-Cuba extremists view the United States role in Latin America. It is useful to take note of his outward support for U.S. imperialism and its desires to dominate the region. He openly calls for undermining Venezuela's democracy and sovereignty as he would like to see the U.S. by organizing the opposition to Chavez interfere in Venezuela's upcoming elections. Interestingly though, the U.S. often accuses, although never proves, that Venezuela interferes in the affairs of its neighboring countries. This is amazingly hypocritical. Mr. Suchlicki and many members of the United States government somehow feel that interfering in the internal affairs of other countries is something of a right that the United States , and only the United States has. By suggesting that Venezuela has threatened the interests of the United States, he would only be correct if he means that the interests of the businesses wanting to enter and dominate other countries are synonymous with the interests of the American people. The interests of the American people have been drowned out by corporate power and there is nothing at all that Venezuela threatens as far as the American people are concerned. Actually, if anything at all can be said about Venezuela and the interests of the American people, it would be positive. Venezuela has negotiated with certain parts of the United States discounted heating oil which has made the lives of some Americans easier. In no way has the average American been affected by Venezuela with Chavez as its president.
Mr. Suchlicki's only correct assertion is the fact that Cuba is has more diversified trade than it had at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It would be a blow to Cuba if the relationship with Venezuela would be more to the liking of the U.S., but since Cuba now has positive relations with most Latin American countries, it probably wouldn't be in Venezuela's interest to turn its back on Cuba no matter who would be in the presidency. Venezuelans benefit from the support in medical services as well as educational cooperation.
The inclusion of Iran in his analysis serves no purpose other than to link Chavez with a country to which Americans are supposed to fear thanks to a media campaign that has tried to prepare the minds of Americans for a possible military confrontation that would no doubt be as legitimate as the invasion of Iraq. As we learned afterwards, although it was easy to know before, that most of reasons for the war with Iraq were untrue.
The United States needs to stay out of the affairs of other nations. If it were to have respectful relations with other nations, it would be in a position to give advice without trying to impose its desires on others. The arrogance of the foreign policy of the United States serves no good purpose for the American people, nor does it bring good feelings from around the world for our country.
Link to Jaime Suchlicki's opinion:
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/17/2316559/chavez-cancer-and-cuba-the-implications.html#ixzz1SOIPQKmu
Mr. Suchlicki's only correct assertion is the fact that Cuba is has more diversified trade than it had at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It would be a blow to Cuba if the relationship with Venezuela would be more to the liking of the U.S., but since Cuba now has positive relations with most Latin American countries, it probably wouldn't be in Venezuela's interest to turn its back on Cuba no matter who would be in the presidency. Venezuelans benefit from the support in medical services as well as educational cooperation.
The inclusion of Iran in his analysis serves no purpose other than to link Chavez with a country to which Americans are supposed to fear thanks to a media campaign that has tried to prepare the minds of Americans for a possible military confrontation that would no doubt be as legitimate as the invasion of Iraq. As we learned afterwards, although it was easy to know before, that most of reasons for the war with Iraq were untrue.
The United States needs to stay out of the affairs of other nations. If it were to have respectful relations with other nations, it would be in a position to give advice without trying to impose its desires on others. The arrogance of the foreign policy of the United States serves no good purpose for the American people, nor does it bring good feelings from around the world for our country.
Link to Jaime Suchlicki's opinion:
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/17/2316559/chavez-cancer-and-cuba-the-implications.html#ixzz1SOIPQKmu
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Does the U.S. Stand by Human Rights Watch?
Does the United States stand by Human Rights Watch? Well sometimes. The blatant hypocrisy by the U.S. is pretty much clear to the whole world. Many people now see the U.S. as one of the most dangerous countries despite its arrogant talk of being a defender of human rights.
Much was made of the report released recently by Human Rights Watch, within the United States, about Cuba allegedly jailing people for their political beliefs. The report states that "The Cuban Criminal Code penalizes anyone who "threatens, libels or slanders, defames, affronts or in any other way insults or offends, with the spoken word or in writing, the dignity or decorum of an authority, public functionary, or his agents or auxiliaries." The violations are punishable by one to three years in prison, if directed at high ranking officials. Such laws violate the right to freedom of expression recognized in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - signed by Cuba in 2008." If those people arrested have prior records or are known to be working with the U.S. government, certainly they will find themselves in hot water. Perhaps these are points not taken into consideration by Human Rights Watch. But Washington is quick to use the report as "evidence" in its campaign against Cuba. Washington liked Human Rights Watch back then.
Now Human Rights Watch has a new report, one that involves war crimes and torture. It states " Bush and his senior officials are open to prosecution under the 1996 War Crimes Act as well as for criminal conspiracy under federal law. There is enough strong evidence from the information made public over the past five years to not only suggest these officials authorised and oversaw widespread and serious violations of US and international law, but that they failed to act to stop mistreatment, or punish those responsible after they became aware of serious abuses." Wow. What does Washington think about Human Rights Watch now?
Can Washington have things both ways? Can it be that Human Rights Watch is mistaken? If so then when? Did they leave out some precious details as to the "dissidents" who were arrested in Cuba? Did they think that the United States would seriously prosecute members or former members of its own government for War Crimes? We all know that the United States has paid people in Cuba, which essentially puts them in the employment of the U.S., to attempt to cause a response by Cuban authorities which would quickly be pointed out as "repression." So possibly it was mistaken in its conclusions in the report on Cuba. It certainly couldn't have been mistaken in the report about the U.S. Former officials have gone as far as admit to these crimes on television. Really it is now just a matter of prosecuting these people.
Thanks for the hypocrisy Uncle Sam. You certainly are an example for the world. Just not the type of example you pretend to be.
Much was made of the report released recently by Human Rights Watch, within the United States, about Cuba allegedly jailing people for their political beliefs. The report states that "The Cuban Criminal Code penalizes anyone who "threatens, libels or slanders, defames, affronts or in any other way insults or offends, with the spoken word or in writing, the dignity or decorum of an authority, public functionary, or his agents or auxiliaries." The violations are punishable by one to three years in prison, if directed at high ranking officials. Such laws violate the right to freedom of expression recognized in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - signed by Cuba in 2008." If those people arrested have prior records or are known to be working with the U.S. government, certainly they will find themselves in hot water. Perhaps these are points not taken into consideration by Human Rights Watch. But Washington is quick to use the report as "evidence" in its campaign against Cuba. Washington liked Human Rights Watch back then.
Now Human Rights Watch has a new report, one that involves war crimes and torture. It states " Bush and his senior officials are open to prosecution under the 1996 War Crimes Act as well as for criminal conspiracy under federal law. There is enough strong evidence from the information made public over the past five years to not only suggest these officials authorised and oversaw widespread and serious violations of US and international law, but that they failed to act to stop mistreatment, or punish those responsible after they became aware of serious abuses." Wow. What does Washington think about Human Rights Watch now?
Can Washington have things both ways? Can it be that Human Rights Watch is mistaken? If so then when? Did they leave out some precious details as to the "dissidents" who were arrested in Cuba? Did they think that the United States would seriously prosecute members or former members of its own government for War Crimes? We all know that the United States has paid people in Cuba, which essentially puts them in the employment of the U.S., to attempt to cause a response by Cuban authorities which would quickly be pointed out as "repression." So possibly it was mistaken in its conclusions in the report on Cuba. It certainly couldn't have been mistaken in the report about the U.S. Former officials have gone as far as admit to these crimes on television. Really it is now just a matter of prosecuting these people.
Thanks for the hypocrisy Uncle Sam. You certainly are an example for the world. Just not the type of example you pretend to be.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Mr. Tamayo's "Do-Over"
A few days ago in the Miami Herald's website, Juan Tamayo wrote an article with the title "Cuban transgender woman says she was fired because her lover is with opposition." Of course like most articles in the Miami Herald, the title alone would make an uninformed reader think that Cuba once again is repressing people. For those people who get their news by reading through titles of articles without ever bothering to go any farther, they would easily form a negative opinion of Cuba. But for those who take the time to read more than just the headlines, they would notice that in the very first line of the article, Mr. Tamayo contradicts the flashy title by writing, "A transgender woman has quit her job at a government-run sex studies center..."
Amazing! How can what Mr. Tamayo writes be considered journalism? Can such blatant trickery be respected? By the sympathizers of the anti-Cuba extremists this would be quite acceptable since they consider lying about Cuba the norm. But to people who respect the idea of actual journalism, this type of thing is nothing short of offensive.
A few people brought up this point in the comments after the article. After a couple of days, magically the same exact article appeared but with a new title which read, "Transgender activist resigns after clash with Castro daughter." Amazing again! What is even more strange is that both exact articles still stand in the same section of the Miami Herald with links to each other. After the false impression was given and left for days without correction the damage was certainly done, at least for those who simply skim the titles.
What made Mr. Tamayo decide to change the title is any one's guess. I would imagine that if not shame for such a blatant lie, embarrassment at the very least is what Mr. Tamayo felt. But who knows. Maybe the Miami Herald couldn't stand to let such an error slide. People must be vigilant and thorough when looking through the news. In this world of "free press" a lot more than just the truth gets by and it is our responsibility to point it out when a situation like this occurs. So probably as a result of scrutiny, Mr. Tamayo was forced to make a "do-over".
Amazing! How can what Mr. Tamayo writes be considered journalism? Can such blatant trickery be respected? By the sympathizers of the anti-Cuba extremists this would be quite acceptable since they consider lying about Cuba the norm. But to people who respect the idea of actual journalism, this type of thing is nothing short of offensive.
A few people brought up this point in the comments after the article. After a couple of days, magically the same exact article appeared but with a new title which read, "Transgender activist resigns after clash with Castro daughter." Amazing again! What is even more strange is that both exact articles still stand in the same section of the Miami Herald with links to each other. After the false impression was given and left for days without correction the damage was certainly done, at least for those who simply skim the titles.
What made Mr. Tamayo decide to change the title is any one's guess. I would imagine that if not shame for such a blatant lie, embarrassment at the very least is what Mr. Tamayo felt. But who knows. Maybe the Miami Herald couldn't stand to let such an error slide. People must be vigilant and thorough when looking through the news. In this world of "free press" a lot more than just the truth gets by and it is our responsibility to point it out when a situation like this occurs. So probably as a result of scrutiny, Mr. Tamayo was forced to make a "do-over".
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Wet-Foot Dry-Foot (The Exception to Logic)
People from countries whose economies face difficulties try to find better situations in other countries every day. Here in the United States, this immigration has helped create a diverse society after centuries of accepting immigrants. This is not to say that each group of immigrants have been welcomed with open arms. There are always campaigns of propaganda that although divided by decades, have a similar theme. Immigrants are portrayed as dirty, lawless, and of course taking our (Americans) jobs. Of course immigrants will look for work, but rarely do they "take jobs" away from people. There are plenty of lawless Americans but it seems easy to target immigrants since they are "different" in many people's minds. What people often forget is that they too are able to trace their roots to other lands and often are here because their families were looking for a better life once upon a time.
To come to this country from one that is considered an underdeveloped country a visa is necessary. Americans who have not themselves had to deal with the visa process are easily led to believe that it is a simple process that if one follows the rules he or she will be granted a visa and happily come to the United States. This is a half truth. Certainly a person who has a visa has gone through the correct process and are entitled to come. But what many people fail to realize is that most people are turned down even though they have jumped through all of the hoops and paid a thousand dollars or more.
Most Cubans who have visa applications go through a similar process as others, although their are certain programs such as the family reunification program meant to speed up the backlog of applicants. But there is another policy in place that is a sort of official unofficial process that is extended to Cubans and Cubans only. It is the "wet-foot dry-foot" policy that states that even without a visa, a Cuban can stay if he or she sets foot on dry land in the U.S. This is a policy created in the environment of propaganda that the U.S. has pursued against Cuba for the past five decades. The rationalization for this "exception" is based on the idea that Cubans are subjected to an oppressive government. Even if this were true, would it be the only oppressive government? Why wouldn't this type of policy cover others from countries that are truly oppressive?
Images of Cubans trying to cross the sea in all kinds of vessels, from converted cars to regular boats, are broadcast to the American people to try and reinforce the idea that Cubans are desperate to "escape" the island. Why then are similar images not broadcast of Haitians making the same dangerous journey? Well in spite of the terrible living conditions and violence, both political and not, it isn't in the U.S.'s interest to show the desperation of Haitians as long as they have a government in place that is more or less obedient to Washington. In fact the only true repression in Cuba is the repression of American corporate desires to control the destiny of Cuba. That kind of repression will not be tolerated by Washington.
Images of Mexicans and Central Americans dying in the desert trying to make it to the U.S. aren't shown. We are just fed the line about those that have made it and are living undocumented and in she shadows are dangerous and need to be found and sent away. These people aren't coming for political reasons, they are coming for the same reasons as the Cubans who are given political refugee status upon their arrival, economics.
It is logical to require a visa process in order to immigrate to the U.S., but it is not logical to leave the door unlocked for a particular group of people with the untrue excuse of political repression. This policy is a dangerous temptation for those willing to try. Many people have died trying to play this game. It is unfair to tempt people to risk their lives for the sole purpose of continuing a propaganda war against Cuba. It also opens the door to a huge illegal business of human trafficking. Ironically, the majority of people profiting from this horrible game of life or death are the Cubans living in Miami. They charge upwards of ten thousand dollars for the reckless endeavor. The U.S. government is fully aware of this and every now and then someone gets in trouble just as during prohibition the police would bust an illegal alcohol vendor only to allow the majority to go untouched.
In the tangled web of politics woven by the U.S. government in regards to Cuba, this policy is one that needs to be addressed. It is logical not to tempt death and it is something that shows the hypocrisy of how the U.S. deals with Cuba. Doing away with this policy would greatly reduce the number of people attempting to cross the sea in such a manner. Doing away with this policy would save lives. But along with doing away with this policy, the U.S. should do what it hasn't been willing to do up until this point, grant the number of visas it has agreed to. By not granting visas that we have agreed to we only cause more people to try to take advantage of the exception too logic only extended to Cubans. The idea that people aren't allowed to leave Cuba is a farce, unless what is meant is that most who apply for visas are denied by the United States.
PLEASE MEET THE VISA OBLIGATIONS AND END THE DANGEROUS WET FOOT/DRY FOOT POLICY
To come to this country from one that is considered an underdeveloped country a visa is necessary. Americans who have not themselves had to deal with the visa process are easily led to believe that it is a simple process that if one follows the rules he or she will be granted a visa and happily come to the United States. This is a half truth. Certainly a person who has a visa has gone through the correct process and are entitled to come. But what many people fail to realize is that most people are turned down even though they have jumped through all of the hoops and paid a thousand dollars or more.
Most Cubans who have visa applications go through a similar process as others, although their are certain programs such as the family reunification program meant to speed up the backlog of applicants. But there is another policy in place that is a sort of official unofficial process that is extended to Cubans and Cubans only. It is the "wet-foot dry-foot" policy that states that even without a visa, a Cuban can stay if he or she sets foot on dry land in the U.S. This is a policy created in the environment of propaganda that the U.S. has pursued against Cuba for the past five decades. The rationalization for this "exception" is based on the idea that Cubans are subjected to an oppressive government. Even if this were true, would it be the only oppressive government? Why wouldn't this type of policy cover others from countries that are truly oppressive?
Images of Cubans trying to cross the sea in all kinds of vessels, from converted cars to regular boats, are broadcast to the American people to try and reinforce the idea that Cubans are desperate to "escape" the island. Why then are similar images not broadcast of Haitians making the same dangerous journey? Well in spite of the terrible living conditions and violence, both political and not, it isn't in the U.S.'s interest to show the desperation of Haitians as long as they have a government in place that is more or less obedient to Washington. In fact the only true repression in Cuba is the repression of American corporate desires to control the destiny of Cuba. That kind of repression will not be tolerated by Washington.
Images of Mexicans and Central Americans dying in the desert trying to make it to the U.S. aren't shown. We are just fed the line about those that have made it and are living undocumented and in she shadows are dangerous and need to be found and sent away. These people aren't coming for political reasons, they are coming for the same reasons as the Cubans who are given political refugee status upon their arrival, economics.
It is logical to require a visa process in order to immigrate to the U.S., but it is not logical to leave the door unlocked for a particular group of people with the untrue excuse of political repression. This policy is a dangerous temptation for those willing to try. Many people have died trying to play this game. It is unfair to tempt people to risk their lives for the sole purpose of continuing a propaganda war against Cuba. It also opens the door to a huge illegal business of human trafficking. Ironically, the majority of people profiting from this horrible game of life or death are the Cubans living in Miami. They charge upwards of ten thousand dollars for the reckless endeavor. The U.S. government is fully aware of this and every now and then someone gets in trouble just as during prohibition the police would bust an illegal alcohol vendor only to allow the majority to go untouched.
In the tangled web of politics woven by the U.S. government in regards to Cuba, this policy is one that needs to be addressed. It is logical not to tempt death and it is something that shows the hypocrisy of how the U.S. deals with Cuba. Doing away with this policy would greatly reduce the number of people attempting to cross the sea in such a manner. Doing away with this policy would save lives. But along with doing away with this policy, the U.S. should do what it hasn't been willing to do up until this point, grant the number of visas it has agreed to. By not granting visas that we have agreed to we only cause more people to try to take advantage of the exception too logic only extended to Cubans. The idea that people aren't allowed to leave Cuba is a farce, unless what is meant is that most who apply for visas are denied by the United States.
PLEASE MEET THE VISA OBLIGATIONS AND END THE DANGEROUS WET FOOT/DRY FOOT POLICY
Human Rights (Medically Speaking)
The World Health Organization, in 1989, called Cuba's health care system a "model for the world." It ranks Cuba 39th in the world even as it spends just a couple of hundred dollars per year per capita. The mighty self-proclaimed king of human rights, the United States ranks 37th. In terms of fairness, Cuba ranked 23rd, while the U.S. 54th.
Cuba's constitution guarantees free healthcare for its people. The same cannot be said about the U.S. constitution. Health care is treated as just another industry with the purpose of making profits. Cuba sees health care as a human right. What an interesting idea! Stating that the people of a nation could be guaranteed healthcare without having to worry about if it fits in their budgets. In spite of an intentionally harmful economic embargo against the island of Cuba, it has found a way to ensure care for its people. The U.S. hasn't yet found a way to prevent this, nor has it tried to find a way to ensure that the 50 million uninsured people will receive healthcare on the level that Cuba has managed to provide for its people.
This is a shame for the United States, the country with the largest economy in the world and the so-called standard bearer of human rights. Just as President Obama did nothing to earn his Nobel Prize after being awarded the honor, the U.S. is morally insuperior and its words are hallow when it comes to human rights in the field of medicine. Perhaps Cuba should blockade its northern neighbor until it decides to recognize true human rights! Would Cuba want to be seen supporting such a regime!?
Cuba's constitution guarantees free healthcare for its people. The same cannot be said about the U.S. constitution. Health care is treated as just another industry with the purpose of making profits. Cuba sees health care as a human right. What an interesting idea! Stating that the people of a nation could be guaranteed healthcare without having to worry about if it fits in their budgets. In spite of an intentionally harmful economic embargo against the island of Cuba, it has found a way to ensure care for its people. The U.S. hasn't yet found a way to prevent this, nor has it tried to find a way to ensure that the 50 million uninsured people will receive healthcare on the level that Cuba has managed to provide for its people.
This is a shame for the United States, the country with the largest economy in the world and the so-called standard bearer of human rights. Just as President Obama did nothing to earn his Nobel Prize after being awarded the honor, the U.S. is morally insuperior and its words are hallow when it comes to human rights in the field of medicine. Perhaps Cuba should blockade its northern neighbor until it decides to recognize true human rights! Would Cuba want to be seen supporting such a regime!?
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Ileana's Misguided Representation
The fact that Cuba in partnership with foreign oil companies will soon be drilling in its territorial waters is one that the United States cannot prevent. The historical coincidence that it will be done in an area closest to the district of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is somewhat ironical. Many Florida politicians have fought hard against drilling for oil off the coast of their state and to a certain extent it makes sense. Florida depends on its beaches as popular tourist destinations and are enjoyed also by the people living there. Any chance of an oil spill that can ruin these beaches would be a terrible blow to the state and its ecosystem. But Florida politicians do not represent Cuba. They have determined policies for decades that deal with the relations between Cuba and the U.S. but as much as they have tried to subvert Cuba they have only accomplished restricting the rights of Americans and caused unnecessary pain to the people on the island.
Many voices have been reasonable as they have expressed the intelligent position of working with Cuba and the companies that will be drilling there. Common sense would lead people to the conclusion that cooperation in planning for an emergency in the event of an oil spill would be the right course of action. Alot is said to cause fear that an accident in Cuban waters could cause oil to harm the coastline of Florida. This is true. But instead of Rep. Ros-Lehtinen taking a position that would be proactive in helping to preserve the beaches of the Florida Keys, she instead finds herself allowing her extremist anti-Castro views preventing her from helping to protect her constituents. She chooses irrationally to instead attempt to punish all those involved in doing business there. She chooses to stand in the way of people trying to do there best to provide support for protecting the environment that happens to be her own district. She has shown that the only people she chooses to represent are the group of people in South Florida whose agendas are nothing more than trying to cause harm to Cuba. In doing this she alienates the people of the Keys who would only benefit from the U.S. cooperating with Cuba on this issue. She chooses to instead smile and pose for pictures with people who have violent pasts and some are even terrorists or calling people to create spectacles in congress to try to further her cause of slandering Cuba. A cause that is tiring the American people whose right are restricted by the policies she supports. Americans are quite cynical and understand the hypocrisy of the policies towards Cuba and are ready for this chapter to be closed. She is doing a terrible job of protecting the interests of Americans and in this case, the people of her own district. Perhaps sooner than later she will lose her relevance as she has already her credibility and will retire from her job as misguided representative to go join her partners and reactivate one of the many violent groups working to hurt the Cuban people. That is where this hateful person fits best. There she can try to enrich herself with the American tax dollars allocated for "democracy programs" as part of a pseudo industry created by the extremists in Miami for themselves.
Many voices have been reasonable as they have expressed the intelligent position of working with Cuba and the companies that will be drilling there. Common sense would lead people to the conclusion that cooperation in planning for an emergency in the event of an oil spill would be the right course of action. Alot is said to cause fear that an accident in Cuban waters could cause oil to harm the coastline of Florida. This is true. But instead of Rep. Ros-Lehtinen taking a position that would be proactive in helping to preserve the beaches of the Florida Keys, she instead finds herself allowing her extremist anti-Castro views preventing her from helping to protect her constituents. She chooses irrationally to instead attempt to punish all those involved in doing business there. She chooses to stand in the way of people trying to do there best to provide support for protecting the environment that happens to be her own district. She has shown that the only people she chooses to represent are the group of people in South Florida whose agendas are nothing more than trying to cause harm to Cuba. In doing this she alienates the people of the Keys who would only benefit from the U.S. cooperating with Cuba on this issue. She chooses to instead smile and pose for pictures with people who have violent pasts and some are even terrorists or calling people to create spectacles in congress to try to further her cause of slandering Cuba. A cause that is tiring the American people whose right are restricted by the policies she supports. Americans are quite cynical and understand the hypocrisy of the policies towards Cuba and are ready for this chapter to be closed. She is doing a terrible job of protecting the interests of Americans and in this case, the people of her own district. Perhaps sooner than later she will lose her relevance as she has already her credibility and will retire from her job as misguided representative to go join her partners and reactivate one of the many violent groups working to hurt the Cuban people. That is where this hateful person fits best. There she can try to enrich herself with the American tax dollars allocated for "democracy programs" as part of a pseudo industry created by the extremists in Miami for themselves.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Mario Tries to Flex His Muscle
Today the House Appropriations Committee passed an ammendment that is intended to erase the tiny progress that Persident Obama has made allowing more travel and money to be sent to Cuba. The less relevant extremists in Miami is trying to flex their muscles which are strong only due to the steroids they have beeen pumped with thanks to years of money and support by Washington. But others' muscles will prove stronger. When Bush tightened restrictions during his presidency, he upset a lot of people who want to see their families in Cuba and also support them in their tough circumstances by sending remittances. Mario hates his family back in Cuba, since ironically his family tree has Fidel in it. The blood connection from way back isn't as strong for him as it is for the majority of Cubans living abroad. They love their families and don't support his endeavors. His big brother Lincoln had to appear on TV to threaten the Cuban community living in Miami who were outraged at Bush's policy and became quite outspoken at the time. Since so many people who enjoy the benefit of political refugee status granted to almost any Cuban as a political tool, a status that is much less given to people from other countries, he threatened to have immigration double check their claims of politcal refugee. Obviously there are almost no true political refugees coming from Cuba, the majority have come simply for economic reasons conveniently using the "refugee" excuse to stay.
Undoubtebly, if his ammendment were to become part of the law, the same outrage would occur, as would quite likely the threats from the extremists. The idea of separating families is one of the most disgusting pleasures of the Diaz-Balart brothers. These individuals are incapable of caring about those who they purport to represent. These guys are at a weak point, and their fears are what they are fighting against. The changes in Cuba have along with an increase in remittances have made it possible for some on the island to begin their own businesses. Mario certainly fears the prospect of people's economic situations getting better. If less and less people choose to leave the island for economic reasons then where will all of the "political refugees" be? There might be less photos in the propagandic press centered in Miami of people trying to "escape" Cuba. There will be less and less applicants for "political Asylum." There will be less and less excuses for this absurd policy. The extremists are running in circles confused and scared. Now they are even faced with the dilema of trying to fend off Big Oil, as it is extremely excited about the prospects of doing business with Cuba.
Now the question is whose muscles are bigger. Are the withering muscles of the extremists down in Miami? Or are the muscles of the American people who have had enough of their own rights restricted by these extremists? I think that though it is unfortunate that the ammendment passed, we will see it eventually, somewhere along the process of creating a budget, get brushed aside with ease as there are now much stronger musles that the Miami crowd must contend with. There time is passing, and soon they will all have to find a place in the Bay of Pigs museum down there in Miami.
Undoubtebly, if his ammendment were to become part of the law, the same outrage would occur, as would quite likely the threats from the extremists. The idea of separating families is one of the most disgusting pleasures of the Diaz-Balart brothers. These individuals are incapable of caring about those who they purport to represent. These guys are at a weak point, and their fears are what they are fighting against. The changes in Cuba have along with an increase in remittances have made it possible for some on the island to begin their own businesses. Mario certainly fears the prospect of people's economic situations getting better. If less and less people choose to leave the island for economic reasons then where will all of the "political refugees" be? There might be less photos in the propagandic press centered in Miami of people trying to "escape" Cuba. There will be less and less applicants for "political Asylum." There will be less and less excuses for this absurd policy. The extremists are running in circles confused and scared. Now they are even faced with the dilema of trying to fend off Big Oil, as it is extremely excited about the prospects of doing business with Cuba.
Now the question is whose muscles are bigger. Are the withering muscles of the extremists down in Miami? Or are the muscles of the American people who have had enough of their own rights restricted by these extremists? I think that though it is unfortunate that the ammendment passed, we will see it eventually, somewhere along the process of creating a budget, get brushed aside with ease as there are now much stronger musles that the Miami crowd must contend with. There time is passing, and soon they will all have to find a place in the Bay of Pigs museum down there in Miami.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
The Pretenders
What is truly amazing about the ridiculous politics that the U.S. selectively employs when it takes its stand on the issue of Cuba is the outright dishonesty on the part of the government in Washington. Never mind the fact that if another nation acted in the same manner as the U.S. does with Cuba towards itself, even in the slightest way, it would find all kinds of justfications to use military actions against the perpetrators. Never mind that almost the entire world denounces the embargo of the island on a yearly basis. Nevermind the fact that in its policy towards Cuba it finds itself violating Americans' right to travel. Nevermind the fact that an angry mob with disproportional influence not only seems to direct Washington's policy from coffee shops in Miami where terrorists walk freely in the midst of an supposed "War on Terror." Nevermind the fact that many of the millions of dollars have enriched some undesirable people in Miami and some other parts at the expense of taxpayers.
What is truly mindblowing is that Washington literally announces to the world that it seeks to give funds to so-called dissidents on the island and when those same so-called dissidents find themselves being targeted by the government of Cuba for working with the proclaimed enemy, it actually tries to fool the entire world that Cuba is not allowing dissent! As Americans, let's imagine for a moment that some group of people causing problems here in the United States were found to be payed by Iran, North Korea, or even Cuba. We would be whipped into a frenzy and public outrage would be fueled by our loyal "free" media. There would be calls for trials or maybe just to hide them down in our military base in occupied Guantanamo. There would be "nothing off the table" as they usually say in Washington as the Pentagon proposes all kinds of military interventions to wipe out those "trying to destroy America." Why is Cuba expected to sit on their hands and not do anything about these people working for, if not with, the enemy?
We know well that by creating these "dissidents" we are subjecting them to scrutiny at the least. We openly acknowledge that Cuba's security has penetrated the groups to a large extent, so large that we suspect that we have been handing over funds right to their intelligence service. what we also know well is that even though a large effort has been made to foment support for these groups, they remain virtually unknown in Cuba and aren't remotely close to achieving the goals of Washington, regime change.
The only thing that this crazy fantasy dissidence is capable of is being highlighted in our media and used as examples of repression on the part of the Cuban government. This is their sole purpose. They are creations to justify the wickedly immoral policies towards Cuba. How long does Washington imagine that such an obvious hypocricy be believed? More and more Americans have realized what the extremists in Miami haven't, that the policy must change. Many Americans are either indifferent to the socialist nature of Cuba or just flat out against the waste of their tax dollars in pursuit of such goals. Even some within the hardline "exile" community have called for a change in policy. More and more politicians from both parties have stated that the embargo should be changed or done away with.
But still we find ourselves with the group of "pretenders" who openly hand out money, advertise opportunities for money to try to subvert Cuba, disregarding its soveriegnty, and pretending that all this never happened, that the "dissidents" are just honest people trying to make their country better! Still they pretend that they have no idea about the connections they have created with some folks on the island who are just looking for a paycheck from Washington as they smile for the cameras and play their parts for the Miami press that just eats it up and then tries to say that they are "reporting." They can pretend all they would like but most people don't buy it anymore. They look like kids telling lies that only the kids themselves believe. It is a terribly embarassing situation that the self-proclaimed leaders of the free world aren't free enough to speak the truth. They just pretend to.
What is truly mindblowing is that Washington literally announces to the world that it seeks to give funds to so-called dissidents on the island and when those same so-called dissidents find themselves being targeted by the government of Cuba for working with the proclaimed enemy, it actually tries to fool the entire world that Cuba is not allowing dissent! As Americans, let's imagine for a moment that some group of people causing problems here in the United States were found to be payed by Iran, North Korea, or even Cuba. We would be whipped into a frenzy and public outrage would be fueled by our loyal "free" media. There would be calls for trials or maybe just to hide them down in our military base in occupied Guantanamo. There would be "nothing off the table" as they usually say in Washington as the Pentagon proposes all kinds of military interventions to wipe out those "trying to destroy America." Why is Cuba expected to sit on their hands and not do anything about these people working for, if not with, the enemy?
We know well that by creating these "dissidents" we are subjecting them to scrutiny at the least. We openly acknowledge that Cuba's security has penetrated the groups to a large extent, so large that we suspect that we have been handing over funds right to their intelligence service. what we also know well is that even though a large effort has been made to foment support for these groups, they remain virtually unknown in Cuba and aren't remotely close to achieving the goals of Washington, regime change.
The only thing that this crazy fantasy dissidence is capable of is being highlighted in our media and used as examples of repression on the part of the Cuban government. This is their sole purpose. They are creations to justify the wickedly immoral policies towards Cuba. How long does Washington imagine that such an obvious hypocricy be believed? More and more Americans have realized what the extremists in Miami haven't, that the policy must change. Many Americans are either indifferent to the socialist nature of Cuba or just flat out against the waste of their tax dollars in pursuit of such goals. Even some within the hardline "exile" community have called for a change in policy. More and more politicians from both parties have stated that the embargo should be changed or done away with.
But still we find ourselves with the group of "pretenders" who openly hand out money, advertise opportunities for money to try to subvert Cuba, disregarding its soveriegnty, and pretending that all this never happened, that the "dissidents" are just honest people trying to make their country better! Still they pretend that they have no idea about the connections they have created with some folks on the island who are just looking for a paycheck from Washington as they smile for the cameras and play their parts for the Miami press that just eats it up and then tries to say that they are "reporting." They can pretend all they would like but most people don't buy it anymore. They look like kids telling lies that only the kids themselves believe. It is a terribly embarassing situation that the self-proclaimed leaders of the free world aren't free enough to speak the truth. They just pretend to.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Part 5: Response to Freedom House Report on Cuba
Most people are already familiar with the fact that Cuba has decided to take a path which creates many changes in the predominantly state controlled economy. In reporting on this aspect of Cubans' opinions, Freedom House describes opinions as being split. People have a wide range of differences in opinion from cynicism to trust in the government. In attempting to portray Cuba in a bad light, much is covered about those cynics who have worries about subsidies disappearing (which would suggest they are popular) and the fear that prices rise outpacing wages. Only one respondent was mentioned as fully supporting the reforms as she believes that the government's guidelines must be correct. The rest of the examples are people complain that business owners will have to pay taxes and unfounded claims that people will simply be thrown out of their jobs with no assistance (something that the government has explained it will not do). The number of examples given by the report support the idea of opinions being split, but are presented in a way that suggests that the split is heavily towards being not favorable. This type of presentaion of opinion may be a reason why the U.S. government payes Freedom House for this kind of reporting.
One of the economic issues widely of concern is the elimination of the dual currency. This is an issue that the government has as one of it's goals. One problem with this kind of change may be the fact that much of what is subsidized is sold in national currency and not in CUC. What good would it be for a change in this without a corresponding change in the earnings of people which is another goal of the government's changes? Much care will be taken, the government has stated, to avoid a shock to the society that leaves many people hopelessly unable to survive. The government has stated that there will be a slow and careful change so that some of the fears expressed are avoided.
Complaints that marabu has grown wildly in the countryside as agriculture has been "abondoned" may actually end up as a positive thing and even possibly a job opportunity since it is used to make a charcol for export to Europe. Imagine if exports of this among other things were allowed to be exported to the large market of the U.S. just north of the island! Seems like certain opportunities are hindered due to the economic embargo imposed by Washington.
Political changes are desired by some while others would like to keep things as they are. With certain things like the announcement of term limits for the position that Raul Castro currently holds, changes in the political structure are underway. The respondent who said that "Nothing is ever their fault," referring to the government is incorrect, although it is his opinion, since Raul Castro has criticized the governments lack of fostering the development of future leaders as Cuba has relied on many people who have been loyal for years and decades only to neglect to a certain degree new faces. The government seems to be acknowledging mistakes. Probably an upsetting finding for the extremists in Miami and the politicians who rail against socialism in Washington is the existing belief in socialism among those interviewed for the report. I guess this would just serve as a justification for the policy makers in Washington continuing the attempted subversion with the goal of regime change against the government of Cuba and hypocritically against the people in Cuba who they pretend to want to spread "democracy" to!
One of the economic issues widely of concern is the elimination of the dual currency. This is an issue that the government has as one of it's goals. One problem with this kind of change may be the fact that much of what is subsidized is sold in national currency and not in CUC. What good would it be for a change in this without a corresponding change in the earnings of people which is another goal of the government's changes? Much care will be taken, the government has stated, to avoid a shock to the society that leaves many people hopelessly unable to survive. The government has stated that there will be a slow and careful change so that some of the fears expressed are avoided.
Complaints that marabu has grown wildly in the countryside as agriculture has been "abondoned" may actually end up as a positive thing and even possibly a job opportunity since it is used to make a charcol for export to Europe. Imagine if exports of this among other things were allowed to be exported to the large market of the U.S. just north of the island! Seems like certain opportunities are hindered due to the economic embargo imposed by Washington.
Political changes are desired by some while others would like to keep things as they are. With certain things like the announcement of term limits for the position that Raul Castro currently holds, changes in the political structure are underway. The respondent who said that "Nothing is ever their fault," referring to the government is incorrect, although it is his opinion, since Raul Castro has criticized the governments lack of fostering the development of future leaders as Cuba has relied on many people who have been loyal for years and decades only to neglect to a certain degree new faces. The government seems to be acknowledging mistakes. Probably an upsetting finding for the extremists in Miami and the politicians who rail against socialism in Washington is the existing belief in socialism among those interviewed for the report. I guess this would just serve as a justification for the policy makers in Washington continuing the attempted subversion with the goal of regime change against the government of Cuba and hypocritically against the people in Cuba who they pretend to want to spread "democracy" to!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
You often pretend to believe in democracy, yet you stood by the people who removed Zelaya from his elected position. You hold meetings in Miami, of course, with people like Lucio Gutierrez, who left office in a helicopter to get asylum in Brazil. Also in attendance was the disgraced former colonel and director of intelligence of the armed forces, Mario Pazmino, who was removed for also working with the CIA. Gustavo Lemus, the man who left Ecuador so not be prosecuted for covering up the murders of two people, was also meeting with your "prestigious" group. Wasn't he one of the people who on the day of the coup that you say "never was" entered the Ecuadorian consulate with sympathizers of the coup?
The director, is he still the director(?), of this silly non-profit is Carlos Sanchez Berzain. Is he not a fugitive from Bolivian justice for his role in the "gas wars", which left 60+ dead and over 500 injured?
Oh Mr. Montaner, I know you have your loyal followers, but surely you must be burning inside knowing that such a group of undesirables has really no credibility outside of the bubble of extremism. This ill-named institute showers praise on such people as Armando Valladares and considers a friend the congresswoman who lobbied for the pardon of the maniac Orlando Bosch.
Groups like these are of no use for the good people of the world, not even the good people who live in Miami.
By claiming that "Gutiérrez is one of the most powerful political choices within the country and
one of the hopes of the democratic recovery for Ecuador", you only confirmed your willful ignorance on the very subject of democracy.
What Pesident Correa shot was not his foot, but a hole in the propagandist machine called the "free press" which has for so many years worked hard at printing half-truths and helped pull the wool over the eyes of so many people, until the day came when it was no longer possible, and the people decided to vote in their own interests to the dismay of the powerful elites who now scream foul in a chorus as they find themselves in a weakened position.