I'll keep it short and sweet due to a lack of time...
This is my response to Fabiola Santiago's attempt to diminish the Pope's visit to Cuba.
"Where do we begin?" asks Fabiola Santiago. That's a good question. But to answer it, one must be serious in their search for an answer.
A good place to start would be asking if those who were rescued at sea had visas from the U.S. or have they ever applied for visas? And if they had, then the next question is how many were denied visas from the same country that would welcome them after they decided to not go through the normal immigration process and would simply consider them "political refugees" simply to perpetuate the idea of repression.
Another place we can begin is considering to stick with the fact that those who decided to go to Spain after being released from jail sentences in Cuba, did not have to go. They could have stayed in Cuba as did some of the ex-prisoners. Not only did the man who committed suicide choose to go to Spain, but apparently, and unfortunately, he discovered that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.
We can begin by not only imagining that the 50+ year old embargo either doesn't exist or is about to force Cuba to change into what Washington and Miami wants it to, but by asking what are the effects of the chosen policy on the lives in Cuba. And what unnecessary hardships do the people face thanks to the far reaching policies of the embargo, the Torriceli Act, and the Helms-Burton Act?
If a person chooses to ask the questions so often avoided yet so obviously vital, then that person may end up like the catholic quoted in this article, questioning her faith. Why? Because those who choose not to acknowledge the situation as it really is, are actually the ones who are still adrift in the turbulent waters of the politics of Cuba, Miami style.
Showing posts with label Pope. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pope. Show all posts
Friday, April 6, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Differing Similarities
Having the Pope visiting Cuba next week will be a positive experience for the Catholics who live there. Not only will it be an experience for only those who live on the island, but a number of people from the United States will be travelling there to witness the event. Many of these plans are being arranged or aided by the Catholic Church in Miami and Archbishop Wenski of that city.
Of course as all things relating to Cuba are politicized, the media and certain personalities have done what they can to politicize the Pope's trip. The usual extremists in South Florida have expressed their dismay with the event, powerless to do anything about it. They are also powerless when it comes to convincing many of the Cubans on this side of the straits that they shouldn't want to travel to the island.
In the weeks leading up to the Pope's visit, all that these individuals and the press have been able to do is attempt to create more bad publicity for the island than they usually do. The most interesting and absurd event took place the other day when a group of individuals decided to enter a church in Havana and stay there demanding the Pope's attention.
Perhaps realizing the unlikelihood of having the Pope as an audience, their demands evolved. They decided on demanding the release of individuals that they and other "dissident" groups like to consider political prisoners. The weakness of their case is that the individuals who they call "political" prisoners are actually people who have committed violent acts and are not considered "prisoners of conscience" by anyone serious. If these people committed violence for political aims, most places would consider them terrorists! But having so few issues to rally behind, these folks decided to make this their cause.
After refusing to leave the church for some days despite the church officials asking them to, the church asked the authorities to intervene to bring this situation to an end. Nothing terrible happened to these people, they left the church in a matter of a few minutes and didn't face any sort of prosecution or anything. Everything went peacefully and the situation was over.
Here is where things are interesting. This event was treated in our press as if there was some sort of outrageous reaction by the church and the police involved. Like I said, things ended peacefully.
According to the Miami Herald, "The operation to end the occupation of the Minor Basilica of the Church of Our Lady of Charity in downtown Havana was specifically requested by Cardinal Jaime Ortega, Archbishop of Havana, according to a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Havana, Orlando Marquez.
A statement released shortly after the dissidents were extracted from the church and published Friday in Granma, the Cuban’s Communist Party’s paper and website, said the 13 repeatedly refused to evacuate despite “unilateral’’ requests from church officials and others.
“For this reason” the cardinal asked government authorities to “invite” the occupants to leave the church, the statement said, adding that the Cardinal was assured the dissidents would be safe once outside the church.
The group, which entered the church Tuesday, was demanding the release of political prisoners, Internet access, free speech and discussion of a road map for building the rule of law in Cuba.
The statement said that the eviction took place at 9 p.m. Thursday and lasted 10 minutes.
“The 13 occupiers were invited to leave the church and offered no resistance. The officers who executed the operation had assured the church that they would not carry weapons, would move the 13 people to a police station and then would take them home. Authorities also gave assurances that they would not be prosecuted,” the statement said."
This became a major story over the course of a few days. Let's take a look at another situation and how it was handled in England recently.
According to the Guardian, "Police and bailiffs moved in to begin clearing the Occupy London encampment in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Activists protesting against the financial and banking elite were told by bailiffs that they had five minutes to pack their tents and leave or they would be obstructing a court order.
Dozens of activists started clearing away tents and belongings, but others began building a barricaded enclosure using wooden pallets and debris.
Hundreds of police officers with riot helmets ready by their sides and dozens of bailiffs in yellow vests waited alongside rubbish lorries and watched the eviction."
Ok. If people are engaged in civil disobedience, they are often times expecting this sort of outcome. But why is it that the show of force by the police in a country that is not Cuba not questioned in the same manner that the police in Cuba are? Comparing the two situations, we know that the police in Havana treated the people who refused to leave in a manner that appears to be a lot less intimidating that the way the London police chose, but we are supposed to feel that somehow the police in Cuba are oh so repressive and horrible. Seems like that's the image that our press tries to create for us as we read about Cuba.
This is an example of how our press chooses to report on Cuba. Rarely are things put in to context, as if Cuba existed in a bubble and there would be no way to compare its actions and decisions with those of other countries. Given the number and size of the protests that have sprung up all over the world during the past year, it seems ridiculous to compare the small number of actions in Cuba by mainly people who are in constant contact with the U.S. Interests Section's officials and news agencies which are historically hostile towards Cuba. These things lend credibility to the idea that much of the information we receive about Cuba through our press and government officials are designed to misinform us about the situation in Cuba. This is something more easily done by limiting our ability to travel to the island and see things for ourselves. Many of the athletes and groups of travellers who have been able to get to the island, come back with a much different perspective than what they had expected. They get to see Cuba as it is, with its blemishes and imperfections, but also for its positive aspects also. This must be what those people who so vehemently oppose opening travel and relations fear the most, losing control of the ability to dominate what we know about Cuba.
Of course as all things relating to Cuba are politicized, the media and certain personalities have done what they can to politicize the Pope's trip. The usual extremists in South Florida have expressed their dismay with the event, powerless to do anything about it. They are also powerless when it comes to convincing many of the Cubans on this side of the straits that they shouldn't want to travel to the island.
In the weeks leading up to the Pope's visit, all that these individuals and the press have been able to do is attempt to create more bad publicity for the island than they usually do. The most interesting and absurd event took place the other day when a group of individuals decided to enter a church in Havana and stay there demanding the Pope's attention.
Perhaps realizing the unlikelihood of having the Pope as an audience, their demands evolved. They decided on demanding the release of individuals that they and other "dissident" groups like to consider political prisoners. The weakness of their case is that the individuals who they call "political" prisoners are actually people who have committed violent acts and are not considered "prisoners of conscience" by anyone serious. If these people committed violence for political aims, most places would consider them terrorists! But having so few issues to rally behind, these folks decided to make this their cause.
After refusing to leave the church for some days despite the church officials asking them to, the church asked the authorities to intervene to bring this situation to an end. Nothing terrible happened to these people, they left the church in a matter of a few minutes and didn't face any sort of prosecution or anything. Everything went peacefully and the situation was over.
Here is where things are interesting. This event was treated in our press as if there was some sort of outrageous reaction by the church and the police involved. Like I said, things ended peacefully.
According to the Miami Herald, "The operation to end the occupation of the Minor Basilica of the Church of Our Lady of Charity in downtown Havana was specifically requested by Cardinal Jaime Ortega, Archbishop of Havana, according to a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Havana, Orlando Marquez.
A statement released shortly after the dissidents were extracted from the church and published Friday in Granma, the Cuban’s Communist Party’s paper and website, said the 13 repeatedly refused to evacuate despite “unilateral’’ requests from church officials and others.
“For this reason” the cardinal asked government authorities to “invite” the occupants to leave the church, the statement said, adding that the Cardinal was assured the dissidents would be safe once outside the church.
The group, which entered the church Tuesday, was demanding the release of political prisoners, Internet access, free speech and discussion of a road map for building the rule of law in Cuba.
The statement said that the eviction took place at 9 p.m. Thursday and lasted 10 minutes.
“The 13 occupiers were invited to leave the church and offered no resistance. The officers who executed the operation had assured the church that they would not carry weapons, would move the 13 people to a police station and then would take them home. Authorities also gave assurances that they would not be prosecuted,” the statement said."
This became a major story over the course of a few days. Let's take a look at another situation and how it was handled in England recently.
According to the Guardian, "Police and bailiffs moved in to begin clearing the Occupy London encampment in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Activists protesting against the financial and banking elite were told by bailiffs that they had five minutes to pack their tents and leave or they would be obstructing a court order.
Dozens of activists started clearing away tents and belongings, but others began building a barricaded enclosure using wooden pallets and debris.
Hundreds of police officers with riot helmets ready by their sides and dozens of bailiffs in yellow vests waited alongside rubbish lorries and watched the eviction."
Ok. If people are engaged in civil disobedience, they are often times expecting this sort of outcome. But why is it that the show of force by the police in a country that is not Cuba not questioned in the same manner that the police in Cuba are? Comparing the two situations, we know that the police in Havana treated the people who refused to leave in a manner that appears to be a lot less intimidating that the way the London police chose, but we are supposed to feel that somehow the police in Cuba are oh so repressive and horrible. Seems like that's the image that our press tries to create for us as we read about Cuba.
This is an example of how our press chooses to report on Cuba. Rarely are things put in to context, as if Cuba existed in a bubble and there would be no way to compare its actions and decisions with those of other countries. Given the number and size of the protests that have sprung up all over the world during the past year, it seems ridiculous to compare the small number of actions in Cuba by mainly people who are in constant contact with the U.S. Interests Section's officials and news agencies which are historically hostile towards Cuba. These things lend credibility to the idea that much of the information we receive about Cuba through our press and government officials are designed to misinform us about the situation in Cuba. This is something more easily done by limiting our ability to travel to the island and see things for ourselves. Many of the athletes and groups of travellers who have been able to get to the island, come back with a much different perspective than what they had expected. They get to see Cuba as it is, with its blemishes and imperfections, but also for its positive aspects also. This must be what those people who so vehemently oppose opening travel and relations fear the most, losing control of the ability to dominate what we know about Cuba.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
"Ruthless Dictatorship"
The editorial section today in the Miami Herald, once again blessed us with a gem of an opinion. This time the opinion was offered by one of the writers/ editors at the Miami paper, Fabiola Santiago. She goes on about the Mass held this past Sunday in Havana by Cardinal Jaime Ortega and how he included prayers for the health of Hugo Chavez and his recovery after removing a cancerous tumor.
I'm not going to comment on people's religious beliefs. To each his own. I really couldn't care less about if or what religion a person decides to follow. But I will say that the suggestion made by Fabiola Santiago, that "Sometimes, as happened Sunday in Havana, that prayer reaches our ears in Miami and rattles our faith, breaks our hearts." if hearts are broken because of a prayer for someone's health to be bettered is heartbreaking to some in Miami, it is a reminder of the lack of respect for humanity that some in Miami's right wing Cuban community show. These twisted individuals who feel that giving the key to Hialeah to the air plane bomber, Luis Posada Carriles, is a good thing, somehow feel that praying for the health of Venezuela's president is offensive and heart breaking.
These right wing, anti-Cuban people are not in the least concerned about the well being of the people of Venezuela. They really couldn't care less about the leadership of Venezuela or any other country as long as they would lend a hand at isolating the Cuban people. But since Hugo Chavez decided that solidarity with the Cuban people would be his country's path, he is now an enemy of the powerful anti-Castro elite in South Florida.
She finds it cynical that such a mass would take place on the island based on the idea that decades ago "all but prohibited religious worship". Even if this were the case then, it isn't now and religious worship does take place, so much so that the Pope will be visiting Cuba later this month. As opposed to opening her mind and accepting the way things are now, she traps herself by the outdated logic prevalent in those that search for ways to rationalize the United States' policy of trying to isolate Cuba. Countless errors have been made in Cuba since 1959, just as mistakes are made by every government in the world, but there has been nothing more harmful to the Cuban people than the laws supported by the extremist in Miami. They have been willing to find any mechanism possible to attempt to cause as many hardships for ordinary Cubans over the past five decades, ironically professing their love for those same victims of their policies.
"Sometimes a prayer sounds less like a prayer and more like a political move." This is how Fabiola Santiago describes the prayers offered for Chavez. Yet she imagines that if the Pope were to decide to visit the so-called dissidents, the ones who have countless connections with the anti-Cuba group in Miami and U.S. government officials, that it wouldn't be a "political move" meant to please the spectators in South Florida. Political is the description offered by Mrs. Santiago of Cuba's government as a "ruthless dictatorship" who, according to her and others in Miami, causes the suffering of the Cuban people. She fails to recognize even once the effects that the embargo and all of the corresponding laws have on the "suffering" Cuban people. Under what she describes as a ruthless dictatorship, the Cuban people go to sleep every night peacefully knowing that not one child on the island goes without a place to call home. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", health care is a right, not a commodity, which all people have including the actors/dissidents who receive their financial support from groups who are openly enemies of the system which guarantees that right. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", people can study as long as they'd like, free of charge, because the "ruthless dictatorship" puts an enormous emphasis on education and, like health care, doesn't view education as a commodity.
Just to be clear, the definition of ruthless is having or showing no pity or compassion for others. The tens of thousands of Cuban doctors who have gone to the farthest corners of the earth on international missions can be considered functionaries of some sort of the "ruthless dictatorship". The children who suffered from health problems from the meltdown at Chernobyl and were saved and offered free care by Cuba's medical system may find it interesting that some folks consider the Cuban government ruthless.
To me, ruthless is a term better used to describe those who fatten themselves up thanks to the inability to fight the gluttonous urge to indulge on the foods so plentiful in countries not blockaded by more powerful ones, while they point to the fact that such food choices aren't readily available on the island, choosing to conveniently ignore one of the reasons for the situation, their own policies. Ruthless is a man with half of a chin, who walks freely in Hialeah although he helped mastermind the blowing up of a civilian airliner and says that he sleeps like a baby. Ruthless are those who are willing to intentionally separate families, by outlawing travel to Cuba.
But then again, ruthless is nothing more than a term used by Fabiola Santiago to describe something that she doesn't like. She can use it however she wants to, but too many people understand the true meaning of the word to find sympathy for the people she speaks for, the extremists in Miami.
I'm not going to comment on people's religious beliefs. To each his own. I really couldn't care less about if or what religion a person decides to follow. But I will say that the suggestion made by Fabiola Santiago, that "Sometimes, as happened Sunday in Havana, that prayer reaches our ears in Miami and rattles our faith, breaks our hearts." if hearts are broken because of a prayer for someone's health to be bettered is heartbreaking to some in Miami, it is a reminder of the lack of respect for humanity that some in Miami's right wing Cuban community show. These twisted individuals who feel that giving the key to Hialeah to the air plane bomber, Luis Posada Carriles, is a good thing, somehow feel that praying for the health of Venezuela's president is offensive and heart breaking.
These right wing, anti-Cuban people are not in the least concerned about the well being of the people of Venezuela. They really couldn't care less about the leadership of Venezuela or any other country as long as they would lend a hand at isolating the Cuban people. But since Hugo Chavez decided that solidarity with the Cuban people would be his country's path, he is now an enemy of the powerful anti-Castro elite in South Florida.
She finds it cynical that such a mass would take place on the island based on the idea that decades ago "all but prohibited religious worship". Even if this were the case then, it isn't now and religious worship does take place, so much so that the Pope will be visiting Cuba later this month. As opposed to opening her mind and accepting the way things are now, she traps herself by the outdated logic prevalent in those that search for ways to rationalize the United States' policy of trying to isolate Cuba. Countless errors have been made in Cuba since 1959, just as mistakes are made by every government in the world, but there has been nothing more harmful to the Cuban people than the laws supported by the extremist in Miami. They have been willing to find any mechanism possible to attempt to cause as many hardships for ordinary Cubans over the past five decades, ironically professing their love for those same victims of their policies.
"Sometimes a prayer sounds less like a prayer and more like a political move." This is how Fabiola Santiago describes the prayers offered for Chavez. Yet she imagines that if the Pope were to decide to visit the so-called dissidents, the ones who have countless connections with the anti-Cuba group in Miami and U.S. government officials, that it wouldn't be a "political move" meant to please the spectators in South Florida. Political is the description offered by Mrs. Santiago of Cuba's government as a "ruthless dictatorship" who, according to her and others in Miami, causes the suffering of the Cuban people. She fails to recognize even once the effects that the embargo and all of the corresponding laws have on the "suffering" Cuban people. Under what she describes as a ruthless dictatorship, the Cuban people go to sleep every night peacefully knowing that not one child on the island goes without a place to call home. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", health care is a right, not a commodity, which all people have including the actors/dissidents who receive their financial support from groups who are openly enemies of the system which guarantees that right. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", people can study as long as they'd like, free of charge, because the "ruthless dictatorship" puts an enormous emphasis on education and, like health care, doesn't view education as a commodity.
Just to be clear, the definition of ruthless is having or showing no pity or compassion for others. The tens of thousands of Cuban doctors who have gone to the farthest corners of the earth on international missions can be considered functionaries of some sort of the "ruthless dictatorship". The children who suffered from health problems from the meltdown at Chernobyl and were saved and offered free care by Cuba's medical system may find it interesting that some folks consider the Cuban government ruthless.
To me, ruthless is a term better used to describe those who fatten themselves up thanks to the inability to fight the gluttonous urge to indulge on the foods so plentiful in countries not blockaded by more powerful ones, while they point to the fact that such food choices aren't readily available on the island, choosing to conveniently ignore one of the reasons for the situation, their own policies. Ruthless is a man with half of a chin, who walks freely in Hialeah although he helped mastermind the blowing up of a civilian airliner and says that he sleeps like a baby. Ruthless are those who are willing to intentionally separate families, by outlawing travel to Cuba.
But then again, ruthless is nothing more than a term used by Fabiola Santiago to describe something that she doesn't like. She can use it however she wants to, but too many people understand the true meaning of the word to find sympathy for the people she speaks for, the extremists in Miami.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)