Mr. President, Thanks for the Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jimmy C

Where To Begin? (Simple)

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.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/06/2735547/popes-visit-to-cuba-leaves-little.html#storylink=cpy

The Cuban Spring

   After witnessing what has been called the "Arab Spring", many commentators here in the U.S. ask the question "will there be a Cuban Spring?"  A better question might be "will Americans be there?"  Not many.  The U.S. still doesn't allow American to travel freely to the island.  Though there are now more opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba, a person must fall in to one of the few categories of approved licences by the Treasury Department.  Hopefully, in the near future, our politicians will unshackle themselves from the cold hearted extremists who have controlled the issue for over 50 years.

   Micheal Goodwin earlier this week, wrote a piece carried on the FOX website, asking that same tired question.  In order for him to have formed his rationale, he had to be willing to play dumb for his audience. 

   He began his article with this quote from the right-wing Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”  This is the typical slanderous jab at the system which seeks to create a more just society.  It seems especially disingenuous when the United States depends so heavily on "other people's money."  Not only does our government rely on borrowing from other countries, but one of the largest financiers is communist China.  Perhaps the capitalist United States  should keep its fingers crossed that it doesn't run out of communists to support its system of inequality. If it were to run out, we may experience our own special period. 

   He goes on to explain how Havana's buildings are crumbling.  Certainly proof that socialism is bankrupt, right?  But of course he fails to mention that a similar situation occurred in South America's largest economy, Brazil,  within the last week.  Perhaps the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota a couple of years back slipped his mind.  Would these two examples be proof of the failed capitalist world?  Perhaps.

   Having forgotten such things, the author goes on to speak about rumors about Fidel having dementia.  He must be referring to an article written by Carlos Alberto Montaner in early January.  Intelligent people realize that Mr. Montaner is completely delusional, if not dishonest, about the subject of Cuba.  Perhaps both suffer from dementia.  Fidel is certainly lucid enough to accurately describe the Republican primaries!

   He claims that Cubans are cut off from the outside world.  The lack of iPhones is the measuring stick that he prefers in this instance.  Then, he points out that the rest of the world, not  the United States, is increasingly engaged in the island.  He points out the silly positions taken by Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney opposing trade with Cuba.  He points out the contradiction in trading with China and not Cuba.  He actually correctly points out that they voice this opposition to trade with Cuba to appeal to the crowd in Miami.  This must be the most pandered to group over the past five decades.

   He then implies that Cuba isn't really interested in trading with the U.S.  This claim comes despite many calls by the Cuban government and the rest of the world to end the embargo.  How does he imagine this?  Does he pretend that the embargo doesn't really effect the Cuban economy?  Cubans would be delighted to be able to sell things to the largest consumer market in the world.  Besides selling to us, the Cuban state would save millions of dollars not having to navigate its way around the most far reaching sanctions ever imposed on a nation. 

   "Their arrest of Alan Gross, an American working with the State Department to help Cuban Jews connect to the Internet, was a chilling illustration of who they are. Gross is serving a 15-year sentence."  Statements like this are fine in the land of propaganda, but it ignores the simple fact that Mr. Gross is in prison for violating Cuban law by clandestinely working for USAID.  What the situation really tells us is how the politicians, aware of the solution to the situation, prefer to have him remain imprisoned for now so as to have some sort of talking point against Cuba since their arguments no longer make much sense to anyone. 

   He finishes his article with a sarcastic statement which reads, "So don’t expect a Cuban Spring anytime soon."  Allow me to answer the poor man with a bit of sarcasm but truth.  Spring starts on Tuesday March 20.
  

 

Keep It Together Mr. Cardona!

The anti-Cuba extremists got handed a defeat this week.  Mario Diaz-Balart's proposal to make life more difficult on Cuban families was dropped from a bill in the House due to pressure by the President.  A big victory for logical people who understand that families shouldn't become subject to their dirty politics nor should the definition of relative.  It's fine if Mario doesn't want to visit his cousins(!), but he shouldn't prevent those who do and would be welcomed with open arms.

Since at least the Elian Gonzalez fiasco, caused by the lunatics in Miami, the anti-Cuba crowd has been finding it more difficult to maintain the upperhand in convincing people that they make sense.  It's hard to make sense when you don't.  So Joe Cardona took a stab at trying to convince readers what the problems with Cuba are.  He labels the Cuban government the "800 pound gorrila".  Here is my reponse to his nonsense:


"The 800 pound gorilla in this situation might actually be one of two things.

First it may be the embargo, which has intentionally caused more economic difficulty on the island than ever was necessary. Even though economic warfare is the expressed intent of this policy which remains in place, those who have supported it somehow make the illogical jump to blaming all economic woes on the island on Castro. It is dishonest, and actually makes little sense. But I wouldn't say that this is the 800 lb gorilla, The full weight of the embargo by the US definitely weighs more than only 800 lbs.

The second possibility is that the 800 pounder is the rabidly anti-Castro/ anti-Cuba crowd that has been holding our foreign policy captive for too many decades. But when I reflect on that pitiful group, and consider the attitudes of a growing number of both Americans and Cuban immigrants, I think that they actually weigh a lot less than 800 lbs. They are getting skinnier, weaker. Their power is fading and they know it. You know it, Mr. Cardona.

So as you guys scramble to hold it together, Cuba's society is evolving, building on the foundations that were created after Batista fled. They are doing so without you guys, independently. Sure, they would love to normalize relations with Washington, it would be positive here and there. They might just get a chance sooner than that pitiful group in Miami ever dreamed.


(You can read Mr. Cardona's sillines with the following link)
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/16/2550105/cubas-800-pound-gorilla.html#ixzz1gnzih1Ua

Miami and D.C.; Axis of Propaganda

   Jose Azel.  Just one of the many whose articles or opinion pieces on the subject of Cuba should be considered as nothing more than litter.  His writings add nothing of any intelligence to the debate about US policy towards the island.


   As opposed to taking an honest opinion about the subject, his most recent piece attempts to clutter the minds of the readers.  Iran is a touchy subject here in the US, especially within the context of our political discourse which heavily relies on fear mongering.  Talking heads and politicians alike have exploited the terrorist attacks in 2001 to justify every military action, every torture, every secret prison, and every sacrificed civil liberty.  Political candidates and office holders are almost frozen by their fear of appearing weak so that they march to the drum beat of the military industrial complex which profits from war whether it is a quagmire or a relatively simple drone strike to apply the death penalty on a perceived enemy without showing the strength and confidence of due process.

   By associating Cuba with Iran, Mr. Azel is counting on readers to imagine a new "axis of evil" which threatens the US.  He continues attempting to portray Cuba in a bad light for supporting Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power.  Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, and by that measure, Iran is within its rights to carry on with its nuclear activities.  Washington has disregarded the spirit of so many treaties, why would it be expected to treat Iran's rights as a signatory to this one any differently?  


   Everyone on earth is aware that the reason Washington is concerned about Iran having nuclear power has nothing to do with its own security but that it would neutralize Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region.  Only a purely arrogant attitude can suggest that Iran has no right to defend itself.


   But that's all part of the game Mr Azel plays.  His entire argument attempts to claim that we need to be concerned about "rogue" type nations.  We should be, but "rogue" by his standards is one that isn't dominated by Washington or Europe.  Cuba has not been willing to follow the dictates of Washington since 1959 and therefore the arrogant people in power believe it should be considered a problem.
Azel's argument though, is being made at a time when growing numbers of Americans want to move beyond the senseless embargo and are becoming more vocal.  Even more troublesome for Mr. Azel is that the same trend can be found amongst Cubans living in the US.  The mighty power of the anti-Cuba groups has been waning in recent years so it is natural that they employ tactics like Mr. Azel chooses to employ.


   Mr.Azel states that a relationship between Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela is "perplexing".  The three countries have different economic systems and religious beliefs.  Should this be a stumbling block for respect between nations?  Of course not.  What brings these countries together?  Mutual interests.  Mutually beneficial trade.  Mr. Azel would like our imaginations to come to the idea that the mutual interest shared by these countries is something like the destruction of the US, but that is a political game meant for the people who are unwilling to think clearly.  Cuba and Iran suffer from sanctions and it is natural that they would seek to find ways to benefit from trade between each other.  Washington can sanction those two countries all it wants but it clearly can't prevent them from trading with each other.  Necessity will trump economic and religious ideologies, why else would Washington be so friendly with Saudi Arabia or China for a couple of examples?


   Mr. Azel knows that people can understand that it is normal for these countries to do business, but true to his anti-Cuba form, he slips into his analysis the charge of illicit business going on between them.  Extremists like him always feel the need to make things appear more sinister than they actually are.  He says that we would be mistaken to view their dealings through our "western" perspective.  What is special about our perspective?  Is not every country seeking to better itself economically?  Ahh, but his arrogance reveals itself.  "They" according to him are different.  If he can convince us of that, then we can imagine them to be inferior, proclaiming ourselves more enlightened, more benevolent.


   Thinking that he himself is more enlightened than the rest of us, Mr. Azel goes into some nonsense about the unifying factor is the hostility of these countries towards the US, once again looking to cause reason to worry.  He can't except that Bolivia and Ecuador also don't follow the rules of the Northern giant, so he deduces that they too are under the influence of the Iranian government or Castro (the ultimate vulgarity for a man who works in the University of Miami's Institute of Cuban and Cuban-American Studies).


   What this pseudo-intellectual is unwilling to admit is that there is a tremendous popular awakening in Latin America and a wave of elections being won by candidates who aren't anti-American but pro their people.  These anti-imperialists are speaking in a way that irks the dominant powers of yesterday who are more likely to try to slander them than respect them.  That is why he feels the need to suggest that we fear South-South friendships that run counter to the status quo.  He pushes the idea that we should fear them and our foreign policy should be more aggressive, lumping all countries who strive to make their own future free from foreign domination into the sinister camp.


   It's time for thoughtfulness to defeat Mr. Azel's and others' arrogance and story telling.  Cuba has no history of aggressive actions towards the US.  In fact, it has been an victim of over 50 years of aggression and economic warfare by Washington and the extremists in Miami.  The rest of the world is aware what kind of dangerous stories are created by extremists in the US.  Just look at what our lies led to in Iraq.  Mr. Azel is just one more creative mind trying to present to us an alternate reality, one in which we should be fearful of countries taking their own paths, that they threaten our tranquility.  His silliness needs to be recognized for what it is, one more story meant to portray revolutionary Cuba as the boogeyman 90 miles away.

You can read Jose Azel's newest addition to Miami's axis of propaganda at :

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/10/2539364/the-tehran-havana-caracas-axis.html

Carlos Montaner, the Economist?

   The "free market", if there ever really was one, offers no answers for anything. The fact that corrupt politicians in so-called democracies, depend on so many contributions from the powerful industries, therefore skewing the Keynesnian ideology, doesn't mean that it isn't better than what ,let's say Milton Friedman proposes. If the working public has to sit around starving while they wait for the market gods to bless the business cycle with an upswing, what happens to them? Free marketeers will say that people will become creative and that is incentive to start a new business. How many people will actually start a new business? Some, but not the majority. The rest just have to imagine that aid will come from the goodness of people who are more fortunate and wait.

    I wish that the ex-president you dined with had a name to go with his admitted corruption. I'm sure he was friendly with the governments of the world that partake in the plundering of the public's wealth. When a person is elected and chooses to try and do right for his people, Evo Morales for example, and doesn't go along with the status quo allowing the public's wealth to be syphoned off by the usual suspects, the industrialized world cries foul. Why? Because the most entrenched systematic corruption can be found in the halls of the capitols of Washington and European nations. With all of the power possessed by the hypocritical supporters of the free market system and democracy, They, along with people like you Mr. Montaner, exert a tremendous amount of pressure through economic blackmail and violence to try to ensure that a president who you call a friend can be reinstalled in the place of the honest man.

    I'm sure that your "opinion" has more to do with the political drama of the United States than it does with other countries, but your support for regimes that rob from their people flies in the face of any argument you might have in opposition to the Keynesnian ideology. Over the past thirty years the transfer of wealth from workers to the elite, thanks in large part to the trickle down theory made famous by Reagan, has left people in the US in an extremely weak situation. It is long overdue, but the politicians of both political parties have almost abandoned any ideas based on Keynes. Unless of course we want to speak about the highly profitable military industrial complex, which is an unfortunate example that would help prove Keynes theory correct. If only half, if not more of what is spent on an industry that thrives on death and destruction, were to be spent on projects that build instead of destroy, there would be numerous examples to help prove Keynesnian theory much more sound than the hopeful free market religion. When the public's money is invested properly in the economy, it is the first domino in a line of businesses that compliment the original expenditure. It is not hard to comprehend.
   
   The reason that people are tired of government spending is that so much of it is done as favors for powerful contributors. The allocated money is not well planned and often wasted. The people loss faith, not in an economic theory, but in the ability of the elected officials to make rational use of the public's money. People often curl into a sort of survival mentality and would, out of emotional frustration, rather the government stop spending. People are easily tricked into believing things like social security is a wasteful Ponzi scheme by either dishonest politicians playing on their fears.

   Why is it that the Social Security fund has enough money that it can be lent to the general budget yet it is the target of fiscal irresponsibility? Wouldn't the general budget, the one from which the actual money is passed to the fat cat contributors be a more logical example of where government waste can be eliminated? If the public had a better understanding of the situation, the demands of the government would be different. But as an extension of the "free market", the corporate media is the main source of information for the rightly disgruntled public. We somehow confuse free press with honest reporting, and although much reporting is honest, it is what is left out of the conversation that causes the lack of an informed public. Of course the corporate media has a an agenda, its own. It needs rating for for advertising dollars and so on and so on. There is no reason for a corporate media to go against its interests and explain the whole situation to the public. The public would react in ways that are likely to chip away at the powers that the giant political donors enjoy, the media conglomerates included.
   
   So once again Mr. Montaner, you use your pulpit to argue against the truth. This time about economic theory instead of the usual misrepresentations and slanders against Cuba, Venezuela, and other nations that won't follow the dictates of the self-proclaimed rulers of the hemisphere.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/19/2415273/keynes-and-corruption.html#ixzz1YS55dF8c

Ping-Pong with Frank Calzon

This is my response to Frank Calzon's plea to remain ignorant in the Miami Herald.

   "Just sending athletes to Cuba to engage in some “Ping-Pong Diplomacy” won’t change Cuba." Your right about that. What will change Cuba, but not in the way you or your cohorts would hope, is the ability to sell goods to the largest consumer market in the world. Ending the embargo and all of the supplemental laws that tighten and expand the policy to other countries will give Cuba an opportunity to grow, something which the US has intentionally tried to prevent for a half century.
    You speak of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speaking against segregation in the US. Do you choose to leave out his belief that the US should respect the people of Cuba? Would you call him a communist as others called him back then? Would you try to marginalize him even though the majority of Americans think it is time to change our policies towards Cuba?
    Do we know about the increased repression? I certainly know that the US is still openly trying to undermine a sovereign country, Cuba. I certainly know that the video of four women standing for 30 minutes in front of the capitol building in Havana showed a camera man cheering them on almost by himself while others, ordinary Cubans walked by and laughed off the staged spectacle. After thirty minutes the women were taken to the patrol car without violence. I know that the creators of the video and their sponsors were frustrated by the fact that they couldn't provoke a violent response, but in spite of what the video shows, they still try to perpetuate the lie.
    "A single glimpse often leads to false conclusions." Right again. Americans should travel to Cuba many times, so that they can see for themselves the disservice the propaganda machine with its Miami headquarters has done by keeping American policy decades behind the rest of the world. Remember, the same press you say was duped into believing the "fresh fruits" trucks in the Soviet Union is the same press that seeks comments from people who meet regularly with the officials of the US Interests Section in Havana and receive compensation for much of their "independent work" on the island. This is the same press that sheepishly allowed the previous US administration lead us into a war in Iraq based on lies by the supposed "good guys."
    Those African nations which were aided by the Cuban people in their fights towards independence still remember to publicly appreciate the Cuban people for the support given at a time when the US was on the side of those against their independence. Is that what you call "documented anti-Americanism?" Would you say Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was also anti-American because he called our government "the greatest purveyor of violence?" Would you punish Dr. King's supporters and try to keep them separated from the rest of the world? Some arrogant people believe that not following the imaginary rules that are set in Washington is anti -American. So Washington refuses to respect the sovereignty of Cuba and continues to try to undermine it and punish the Cuban people.
    The US is increasingly marginalizing itself in a world that views its policies as being cruel and hypocritical. The "hard-liners" are finding themselves in a weakened position as they try to jockey for the sympathy of the American people and comically attempt to represent the aspirations of the Cuban people who they have intentionally caused to suffer unnecessarily for decades.
    Mr.Calzon, the end is near, you feel it, it burns. You and others know full well that you are in a race you can't win and won't. The Cuban people are making their own changes and the longer the hard-liners try to punish them for doing so, the less space their will be for them in Havana and Washington in the future.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/08/2397134/ping-pong-diplomacy-changes-little.html#ixzz1XS9BqCWI

An Example of Manipulation in the Free Press

   This is what I think about the over-hyped media creation of the "dissident" movement in Cuba and how the supposed "free press" chooses to report about it.

   This statement by the Church has disappointed the dissidents receiving financial support from the US government and extremists in Miami, but they have to smile and bite their tongues and sound happy about it. They are looking to create the impression that something similar is happening in Cuba to what is happening in the Middle East. What they face is not government repression, although it is possible that sometimes police as anywhere else  may be too rough with them. They face a public which, if they even are aware of them, view them as pawns for the US and rightly so.
    "The mobs are made up of members of pro-government groups" states the woman who is the spokesperson for the Ladies in White. Does she deny that there are people on the island who support the government? Does she suggest that Cuban people, ordinary Cuban people, who oppose her need the government to organize them to oppose her group? What kind of irrational person believes that the Cuban government doesn't have any support? Populations are easily emotionally charged when they believe that there are people working on behalf of foreign powers to subvert their sovereignty? Even if one chooses to look to Freedom House's reports about Cuba, one would see that their is a good number of people on the island that support and trust the government in Cuba.
    “Any other way of looking at Cuba’s reality that could affect peaceful coexistence and break down the nation’s well-being cannot find any support among those of us who have a Christian vision of the world,” the statement from the Church added. “It is not necessary to ask for the church’s opinion,” he said. “It is well known, and we have reiterated it various times, that violence of any kind against defenseless people has no justification.” They are right.
    But what these Ladies, and a few men, are looking for is not an opinion. They are looking for a way to further the slander and media manipulation about Cuba. Their group was wisely not mentioned in the Church's statement. As the statement said,“In the past few days journalists have asked for the church’s opinion on incidents in which the wives of some former prisoners . .. had been mistreated, according to their own declarations." Journalists were the ones being offered a response, not the Ladies in White. As Mr. Tamayo points out, the statement was carefully written. The Church officials are certainly no fools and they are intentionally avoiding elevating the stature of this particular group, not out of fear, but out of knowing that it would be irresponsible to perpetuate the notion that they are independent actors.
    Nothing will come out of this. Cuba is moving ahead with the reforms that they believe will improve the country. People are finding new ways of employment. People still live in one of the safest countries. Children still go to school then go home and laugh and play. People still have free health care, including the "dissidents" who decide to go on hunger strikes or are allegedly bruised by the authorities or angry neighbors. As much as some people wish to see scenes in Cuba similar to those in Egypt, they will be perpetually disappointed.
    Isn't it strange that those who are often quoted in our press are the ones who make regular visits to the Interests Section? Why does that detail always manage to be absent from the articles presented to us? If these people have such fantastic stories, why would that be left out? Do the reporters here like Mr. Tamayo, feel that if that was a known fact by Americans, we too would be as cynical as ordinary Cubans as to their "independence". Of course if our press were to tell us that these people meet with the American diplomats, receiving money, materials, and gifts these people would simply be laughed off as stooges. But our cherished free press is free to report things however it likes even if it isn't the full story. It is quite a disservice to those seeking to learn about things.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/05/2392024/cuba-denies-targeting-dissidents.html#ixzz1XC9tNaUC

There is another article in the Miami Herald that covers the same topic.  In the other article written by Paul Haven, the typical anti-Cuba slant can be seen, but to his credit, he chooses not to use quotes from the "dissidents" and even points out the possibility that they are untruthful.  This article is an example of how a reporter can maintain the anti-Cuba idea without stooping as low as Juan Tamayo by quoting obvious lackeys of the US and extremists in Miami. Mr. Tamayo can't find it in himself to report that these women may be phoning false information into "exile" radio and TV stations.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/05/2391522/catholic-church-knocks-abuse-of.html#ixzz1XCCd0BcX

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

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:

  Mr. Montaner,  In your eternal silliness, do you really think that a group located in Miami of all places, is in a position to cause President Correa a headache?
  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.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/08/2351559/ecuadors-correa-shoots-himself.html#ixzz1UfDgyDgf

Responding to the Editorial Board of the Miami Herald

The editors of the Miami Herald have expressed the unsurprising view against the imprisonment of Alan Gross.  They have filled the opinion with ignorance and inaccuracies as they have tried to twist the unfortunate situations caused by the actions of Mr. Gross and USAID into reasons for restricting family visits and remittances once again.  By reading the comments that follow the article, it is clear that they have not convinced many of the readers of the Herald.

 

It's not "if" he was guilty, he was found guilty in Cuba which has its own laws and they apply to foreigners as well as residents.  Cuba's crime is not acting like Pakistan which released a CIA agent after he committed murder, probably because its dependence on American foreign aid.  "Democratic" Pakistan went on and did this against the popular opinion.  To the Pakistanis who were treated by Cuban doctors after the earthquake, those Cuban doctors probably smelled a lot better than their "elected" representatives.

There are groups trying to urge people in South Florida to get their citizenship for the very reason of being able to vote out these people who don't care to represent the residents of their respective districts.
 
The Cuban government can do anything possible under the sun and the majority of the press here will never suggest that it "smells like a rose."  It can educate poor Americans for free allowing them a chance to become doctors and still, they don't "smell like a rose."  They can have a nation with no homeless and our press can only point out that the quality of housing is poor.  They can provide free universal health care and all our press can point out is some pictures of dilapidated hospital rooms.

 
Our "free press" doesn't care to go beyond these facts and explain the difficulties that Cuba has faced over the years in obtaining certain medical equipment that is restricted by US laws.  The "free press" finds it difficult to point out anything about the problems in Cuba without trying to lay all blame at the feet of Castro, who himself and now his brother take responsibility for many of the mistakes that they have made.

If the route of trading Mr. Gross for the Cuban 5 is one that the US isn't interested in then there is nothing that we can do about it.  That is how our "democracy" works unfortunately.  Hopefully, those who are in positions to make those decisions will find the political courage to consider this option before it is too late for Mr. Gross' sick mother and daughter  to be with him again.  They are all pawns in this geopolitical stalemate and those grandstanding on the issue won't particularly be personally affected by the possible tragic personal outcomes of these real people.  

Silly editorials that choose to pretend a different reality serve no purpose than to act as a cheerleader for a particular side, in this case the extremists in South Florida.  This sham of an opinion is simply trying to argue for a return of the Bush policies in regards to remittances and family visits.  That policy did nothing to Cuba and did draw much criticism from the Cubans in this country.  If there was no Alan Gross this newspaper would be finding another excuse to support turning back the clock on our policies. 

That Sen. Rubio exclaims that the punishment is vastly disproportionate means absolutely nothing.  His opinion on the punishments handed out in Cuba have no value nor merritt when it comes to what Cuba decides to do as punishment.  This Senator possibly doesn't have a passport or if he does, doesn't care to understand what our own State Department has written inside of it.  The sixth item under important information says (and it is quite appropriate for a response to the Senator's nonsense) "6. Remember, while in a foreign country, you are subject to its laws.  Penalties for violating local laws, even if unknowingly, CAN BE MORE SEVERE THAN IN THE US FOR SIMILAR OFFENSES."  (My capital letters)

It is clear for anyone at the editorial board, in the senate, or anyone who is a passport holder. 

The notion that this is only a "crime" in Cuba is dishonest.  Surely it is a crime to receive aid and act as a contractor for an enemy state everywhere.  I don't know if Mr. Gross registered as a foreign agent in Cuba, which was one of the crimes that the Cuban 5 were convicted of, but I'm sure that he didn't as he entered the country with a tourist visa.  This willful ignorance by so many in our press should be more than enough to suspect that the "free press" is a mere mouthpiece for certain groups and cares little about actually reporting in an unbiased way.  There is much reason to question the ability of our press as much as we like to question the press in other countries.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/07/2347220/unjust-verdict-unjust-regime.html#comment-279619964#ixzz1ULchP7wh

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

Part 4: Reponse to Freedom House Report

   In the section of the report that adresses restrictions on society, there are contradictions in the report.  The report suggests that when talking about the government people's voices were lowered or they asked to go to a more private area.  First it is probable that since they were conducting interviews with a group funded by the U.S. government they may have been worried about the fact that they were treading close to what is illegal, working with the announced enemy of their country.  In spite of respondents saying that nothing can be said against the government there, Freedom House found a situation where a man was telling jokes about the Castro's in the middle of the sidewalk in Havana.  Perhaps he wasn't aware of the "restrictions."  While trying to convince the readers that Cuba's government is unfair, they point out that penalties are given to those people who don't follow economic restrictions.  Here in the U.S. much is said about the rule of law, so why is a penalty against breaking laws to be seen as a problem?  And why would Freedom House feel it necessary to say "regime critics" when describing those who are penalized?  We all know that in almost all prisons in the world evewryone is innocent(!) so why would they take for granted that the woman's story about being fined for not reporting someone who was renting a room in a timely manner?  Anyone who has been to Cuba has experienced the type of crime like a taxi driver not running the meter and pocketing the money for himself.  Are we to give the lady the benefit of the doubt that she wasn't doing something similar?  Perhaps she wasn't, but if she wasn't reporting things the way that she was supposed to then she was still violating something.  The report, although ignoring the possibility of black market activity in the case of the woman renting rooms, goes on to talk about the black market.  It brings up the fact that these casa particulares (houses for rent) rely many times on food purchases from unlicensed sellers.  The wilingness to engage in the black market whether or not out of necessity, should also call into the claims of the woman claiming to have simply not reported the rented rooms in a timely manner.
   The old complaints about Cuba's hotels being only for foreigners is an issue resolved a few years ago when the government lifted those restrictions.  Now the complaint that remains is that in practice very few Cubans can afford to go to such places.  While this is unfortunate, I'd like to know where there exists a society where all of the people earn enough to go on vacations.  There is no country like that to my knowledge and this complaint only serves as an attempt to pretend that Cuba is unique in this way.  How much emphasis is put on countries with similar situations by Washington?  Does Washington spend millions on reports to point this out?  Certainly not if the country is willing to go along with the economic desires bof Washington.  Washington even doesn't worry much about the form of government in countries who are economically or geopolitically advantageous to its own interests.  Pure hypocricy.  But then again, hypocricy is not all that uncommon when it comes to its policies towards Cuba.

Part 3: Response to Freedom House Cuba Report

   In the subsection of this report called "Daily Needs"  The report begins by pointing out that Cubans are preoccupied by their economic situation.  Cubans in the survey described their situations as "tight."  The fact that the Cuban economy has intentionally been obstructed by the policies of the United States is totally ignored as emphasis is given to salaries from jobs are usually supplemented by black market earnings.  Just as in the United States, many people have had to find jobs unrelated to their degrees.  This could be due to the fact that the U.S. would not serve as a market which would allow certain sectors to flourish leaving for example, an engineer who rents rooms in two houses for a living.  If there is limited ability to apply his engineering skills he must obviously look for something else to do.  But unlike the situation in the U.S., jobs are not outsourced for cheaper labor, they are simply not yet in demand.  With a growth in the economy, it would be logical to conclude that there are many educated and prepared people to fill the necessary positions.  Since tourism at this point is one of the more lucrative sectors of the economy it makes sense that now people are earning livings within this sector.  The problem of the black market stems from more than one reason and it is a difficult cycle to break.  Low level workers steal from their workplaces only to create scarcity and then cause the price of goods to be higher on the black market.  Some people certainly justify their actions as a way to make more money without realizing the negative effects that their actions have on the rest of their society.  Althought the wages are relatively low, the personal economic situations are made even "tighter" due to the black market.  By legalizing some of the goods and services that formerly were part of the black market, the society will be in a better position to prevent the values of goods and services from spiraling upwards in relation to salaries.  Scarcity will lessen as people are more personally tied to the goods that they aren't expected to steal. 
   One man commented that it is easy for foreigners to defend the revolution when one doesn't have to endure life within it.  To an extent that's true.  What is also true is that many foreigners are defending priciples that they share with the revolution.  By living outside of Cuba, one is able to see positive aspects of the acheivements in comparison to what they have in their own countries.  A Cuban has a tight situation, yet never has the fear of losing their home or medical insurance. 
   The report cites a musician who complains that some imported goods must be paid for in CUC while he receives a salary in national pesos.  These can easily be exchanged, but the inconvenience of a dual currecy system is not the actual problem he faces.  The problem is that whether he has national pesos or CUC he still doesn't have enough to make his puchase of instruments.  A currency exchange may be inconvenient but the value of the purchase remains the same.  If he had enough money in national pesos then the only problem was one of having to go to a currency exchange place (Cadeca). 
   Some respondents said that they had concerns about the ability to have a family if they have a tough time supporting themselves.  I would venture to guess, although not scientifically(!) that this is a concern for people in any country.  Having children is more costly than not, but many of the expenses that people face such as doctor bills and such are not at all of concern in the free universal medical system in Cuba.  Certainly it is responsible to think of how able one is to support a family, but there are babies being born in Cuba and they are being fed.
   Complaints about the transportation system are common among  the respondents are high and suggestions that this impedes the ability to take advantage of the healthcare system.  Though this is true in certain situations, neighbors with cars are usually willing to help out in an emergency.  There are medical clinics all over the island availible to anyone and most times are within walking didtance.  Besides that, I have personally witnessed doctors going to the peoples's houses to give medical attention to patients, all of which are free.  That is probably why healthcare (along with free education and low crime rates) are frequently mentioned as a main source of happiness.  The report felt it necessary to include concerns about recent spikes in crime but apparently it didn't detract from the sentiment of happiness for the low crime rates.  Nor did the suggested uselessness of the educational degrees the were mentioned earlier detract from the happiness of having free education.  Almost half responded that their families were their greatest source of happiness and which Freedom House has decided that by being happier with family than free medical, education, and low crime rates there must be a shift in people's attitudes (suggestively towards worse) since the last survey.  Quite an assumption! As if people being happier with their families than social services is a symptom of a problem in Cuban society!

The Priest of the Miami Herald

  The star of the Miami Herald's Cuba section, Mr. Juan O. Tamayo, is working hard as usual.  I wonder sometimes how hard it is for some people who are "experts" to keep going without worrying about their inconsistencies as they slant reality in a direction somewhat off to the realm of storytelling.  The Herald works hard to keep it's readers in this false reality.
   Today he decided to play church people against church people.  Typical nonsense.  That's how the game is played in the Miami wonderland.  Of course he refers to comments made to El Nuevo Herald by what he calls "Cuba's most outspoken priest."  A priest who is outspoken, why?  Because he speaks the words that somewhat fit the storyline of the two Heralds.  On top of that he chooses to speak to the news outlets most hostile to the Revolution.  What about the storyline that people who speak out face "consequences?"  Let's not focus on a silly detail like that though, that's not the point he tries to make in this article.  The reason the Herald needs to find a "rebel" priest is that one of the bigger stories coming out of the island over the past year or so is that the Catholic Church appears to be taking a more cooperative role on the island.  Ever since the Pope visited Cuba years ago, reactionary Miami has scrambled to figure out a response to this.  Since hating the Pope, along with Nelson Mandela, was making them look ridiculous, they decided that a different approach would be necessary.  A major part of the propaganda the Miami crowd had used in it's long and fruitless campaign against Cuba had been the "suppression" of religion.  Had the Church not been actively working with the self-proclaimed enemies of the Revolution at the beginning, things may have been different.  The "rebel" priest speaking to the Herald stated how Cardinal Ortega has "more access to the people who hold power" and how "it reflects an advantage for both the Cubans and Catholics." 

“The church now does have a larger space, but to express ideas that do not affect the power,” Mr. Tamayo highlights.  I know that there are many people who support the idea of religious states, but what right would a church have in affecting power?  I would say that if the Church is affecting people and people are in power, then there is a chance that one's religious beliefs could affect the decisions of that individual.  But what Mr. Tamayo is basically suggesting is that the fair thing to be done is to allow the Church to make desicions along with the state.  The priest goes on to say that while on a visit to Krakow, he was told by a Polish Cardinal that the Church is on the side of the people as is God.  So guess who isn't!  The suggestion is that the government isn't.  But isn't this the government that   is "allowing the Church more space" and it would be reasonable to think that the people are not being prevented from having God on their side if they so choose?  By the way, did he travel to another country?  I'm just wondering what that says about the ability for people who aren't exactly aligned with the regime to travel.  Another silly detail that goes against what we are supposed to believe about Cuba.  Mr Tamayo is proud to tout the credibility of the priest who he says has long been a harsh critic writing letters to Fidel and Raul "blasting the government" in his comments to the media.  My goodness Mr. Tamayo, why isn't he rotting away in a dingy cell somewhere in the island?  Isn't that what happens to people like this?  No, actually he is ending a three month trip to multiple countries including the U.S.  Amazing isn't it?  Well maybe he'll be dragged away once he gets home.  Wouldn't that make for an interesting follow up article!  

   The priest went on to express his skepticism about everything from the release of prisoners to the new reforms being undertaken in Cuba.  He also gets the impression that the church is gaining a presence in the media.  How astute of him.  He feels that Cubans are "losing their fear of retribution for speaking out", and nowhere does he mention that Raul Castro has repeatedly called on the people to do just that.  The priest does mention that he welcomes more Americans being able to travel to Cuba on humanitarian visits, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and imagine that he isn't opposed to people visiting their relatives as often as they would like either.  That's a position that is almost unacceptable by the never give up group of fascists in Miami.  I guess that isn't a good sign for the Diaz-Balarts and Ros-Lehtinen types who would rather keep families separated for another fifty years.  

   All things said, we can see how the effort to twist our perspective a bit is being made on an almost constant basis by people like Mr. Tamayo.  But it's to bad for them that they find themselves stuck in the island of Miami politics and can't conquer the minds of everyone just as they haven't been able to conquer Cuba's Revolution.

Downplaying Reality or Just Pretending It Isn't So

  Juan O. Tamayo's latest attempt to downplay the results of the recent congress in Cuba shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt, but an entire spoonful.  As is quite common for the anti-Cuba crowd in Miami, nothing that happens in Cuba can be spoken of positively nor taken seriously.  They suggest rather that their "exile" expertise should be recognized, even thought their predictions about Cuba have been wrong for fifty two years!  Besides having become something to make a living off of, Cuba is basically a thorn in the side of those who feel that it is some sort of natural right to be able to dictate to other nations according to their own interests, ignoring things like respect and sovereignty.  It is a point of view stemming from imperial arrogance.  In the view of most of the world, Cuba represents a nation strong enough to endure a fifty year old economic war waged by the most powerful country in the history of the world.  Not only that, to many all over, Cuba is also an example of unique progress ready to share what it can , whether it be doctors and medical training or ways to produce organic food efficiently with few resources.  These realities are all brushed aside by the folks in Miami and Washington because a recognition of any of this would be an admission of their own failures.
   In their confusion and lack of anything thoughtful in response to the recent congress, they have resorted to trying to say everything and anything.  Nothing has to make sense, nor are you supposed to realize it.  Your job is to just get enough propaganda to believe that Cuba's revolution won't be around for long.  Oh yeah, try not to remember that whatever the situation has been, they have been saying that since 1959.
   You have people trying to point out a black economist who says the changes will disproportionately affect black people on the island as opposed to whites, and it will be necessary to have a type of affirmative action to make things more fair. Really? And who is this argument directed towards? Certainly they can't be appealing to the white racists who moved to Miami after having maintained a system of segregation on the island.  Many of those same people intended to wait for the fruits of the embargo and acts of terrorism against the people in Cuba to return and pick up their exploitation right where they left off.  So this must be an appeal to the majority, the good people who are in favor of equality for all and won't accept racism.  The problem that they run against with this argument is the fact that most good people understand that our harsh policy towards Cuba  is unjustifiable and should be ended. 
   There is the argument that the changes coming in Cuba will be so extreme that the people who supported the "shock doctrine" that was applied in the former Soviet states would wince.  Without much thinking at all, it would be easy to understand that Cuba had the advantage of seeing the despair in those countries, and has long stated very clearly that that is not a path that interests them, not from the standpoint of the people, nor from the standpoint of the state.  Selling off one's sovereignty will not be the way for Cuba.
   Then we have the view put out by Juan O. Tamayo.  A view designed to protect the extremists' positions in "exile".  If they can say that changes really won't be occuring, they will find it easier to mantain their stubborn position.  Cuba will not fail and fall apart.  Instead they will be able to pretend that Cuba is "being ruled by an iron fist" as they always contend, which in their minds justifies a continuation of their parasitic existence.  They will have a reason for taking the American public's money for pet projects like Radio an TV Marti.  The politicians will be able to raise money for their campaigns as they all try to posistion themselves as "Cuba's worst enemy" in Congress or City Council or whatever. 
   Just weeks after the Cuban Congress finished it's work and days after they published all of the results for the population, Mr. Tamayo has, with his usual contemptuous atitude, decided that the Cuban people have already given up on the new direction put forth by the Congress. Utter silliness is what he offers readers as proof of his theory.  He suggests that although they sold quite quickly in the beginning, there now seems to be many left on the shelves.  He also states that the originals were so much in demand that they were even resold for more than the face value. If that is the case, then he helps disprove his own analysis since more people read the first copies, opting to buy them from others, which would mean more being left on the shelves later!  He writes off complaints about there being too many generalities, but in fact it puts a plan in effect that is able to move more quickly or slowly so as to protect the population from a "shock therapy" as others suggest.  It portays certain changes as decisions to not change!  There are certain things that cannot be given a specific timeline such as the dual currency situation, but it makes sense that there is an honest desire on the part of everyone to eventually have one currency.  The fact that there will be certain restrictions on the accumulation of property is a sign that Cuba's revolution will be sticking to its principles, although it will be allowing a market for private businesses (which is being promoted), home sales, and other things. 
   The postponement of layoffs is more unsettling for the enemies of Cuba than it is for the Cuban economy.  Although there is a need for trimming certain redundant jobs and jobs that can be handled by "cuentapropistas" doing so to rapidly would probably cause more harm than good.  Therein lies the reason for the disappointment on the part of the people waiting for Cuba to fail.  Oh how they would love to show pictures of the horrors of Cuba!  But they can't and they won't have their pictures. They try to use the new guidelines as evidence of a criticism of Fidel Castro, but anyone who has been paying attention would know that Fidel has been speaking of some of these things for a while.  In fact, some of these things are expansions of programs that started before his retirement.  Of course Mr. Tamayo had to finish his article with a metaphor talking about the mixture of chickpeas and coffee causing some coffee makers to explode.  What he and many others seem to not grasp is that is a sign of Cuba's ability to adjust and adapt to circumstances and not a sign of surrender.

Still More Ridiculous

     I'm purely speculating about what it takes to be an opinion writer for a Miami newspaper when I say there must be some kind of secret oath to fantasy and absurdity involved.
     Somehow, someone decided that one of these prominent voices sworn to nonsense is would be Carlos Alberto Montaner. Here my response to his "brilliant" piece about Jimmy Carter's recent trip to Cuba.(The link follows the response):

     "Mr. Montaner, please explain how this isn't another "opinion" piece trying to deflate the potential of Jimmy Carter's trip to Cuba. The anti-Cuba arguments coming from a smaller and smaller group in the United States are becoming more impotent by the day. It must be becoming more obvious to even some of the hard-liners here that our policy towards Cuba is close to being on the way out.
     The same lack of vision that has lead us in the wrong direction for fifty plus years is the same that makes it unclear to some ignorant people as to why Raul Castro would prefer Jimmy Carter over State Dept. officials. Quite possibly he understands the institutions here and how they function quite well since he has been around longer than many employees of that same Dept. of State. If you believe sir, that Cuba needs to be the only country of the two that must make offerings to the other then you obviously will sideline yourself since it is impossible for you to comprehend the respect that Cuba demands and deserves. You are unable to accept the idea of Cuba being a soveriegn state, which although may not see eye to eye with the US, does deserve respect if at the bargaining table. After all, outside of Miami and Washington Cuba is highly respected for its accomplishments in spite of all it has endured.

     "He infiltrates their ranks to learn their movements..." you suggest. Perhaps this is a tactic that Cuba has learned from American inteligence services (or any other country's for that matter).  I doubt it but I don't know why it is OK for some and not for others.

     As Wiki Leaks exposed, since you bring it up, is the belief of the US government that the traditional "dissidents" are absolutely ineffectual and are competing on behalf of the groups in Miami for positions in a post-Castro Cuba.  They are doing nothing to help Cuba nor its people. Basically the US is wasting resources on a group of "exiles" playing a political version of fantasy football. As I like to mention, it's all part of a delusionally hopeful group of "exiles" with some political clout in the US. These groups are some of the same groups that got beaten by the Revolution over 50 years ago.

     Before Cubans are allowed to take vacations in the US on a larger scale than they do now (usually older people who do return to Cuba at the end of the visit), we would have to address the pesky problem of the Cuban Adjustment Act and the corresponding Wet foot- Dry foot policy. Certainly that is a unique policy that Europeans don't even enjoy when they attempt to visit or emmigrate to the US. much less anyone visiting from the rest of Latin America.

     You probably are right that there will not be huge advances as a result of Carter's visit. The advances will be coming due to American's losing patience with the useless and counterproductive policy towards Cuba.. It just needs to happen in a way that the US can save face after so many years of such an internationally admonished policy. I only wonder what the people who make livings off of the embargo will do after it is gone."

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/03/2145885/cuba-twilight-of-the-regime.html#ixzz1L1derVZJ

Responding to the Ridiculous

   With the events that are occuring in Africa and the Middle East, the Cuban "exile" community through their typical platforms are trying to link their losing struggle and find sypathy for their greedy cause.  On the second of April, a pitiful excuse of an opinion was published in the Miami Herald.  I don't like to put down others' opinions but if one is more of a distortion than an opinion, I'll have to point it out.
   The link to the column follows the response.  Read that too if possible to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

My response to "Cubans ask:Why should Cuba be different?"

Mr. Cardona, there are a few things in your opinion column that need to be adressed and clarified so that any person who knows little to nothing of the history of relations between the US and Cuba doesn't become confused (which actually may be yor reason for writing such things).

You say that you are surprised at how little the west and other democracies demand of Cuba? Really? What is the cause for your surprise? Are you not aware of the demands placed upon Cuba by the US? There seems to be, depending upon the what year it is and what the global situation is, an endless list of demands that seems to change whenever certain factors change.  In case you may like at least one example, let me start with a simple one.  The US said since Cuba had been aligned with the Soviet Union it was a threat, also being accused of exportring revolutions.  Nevermind that we actually dealt with the Soviet Union, supposedly Cuba was dangerous! The Soviets are long gone and there are no revolutions being exported (unless you count the ones that are being waged at the ballot box like Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and almost every country in the hemisphere tired of having leaders falling all over themselves to make Washington happy). The reasons shifted to civil rights and political prisoners. Well civil rights seem to be a matter of perspective. I think Americans would understand, especially in light of the Patriot Act as a response to terrorist attacks on our country, that Cuba, a country constantly dealing with open attemps of suversion and sabotage, that out of self-defense some civil rights may suffer. As for political prisoners? Well, if people have taken money from and worked with an enemy government, it would be hard to call that political persecution. But let's play your game for a moment and suppose that they are all political prisoners. Amnesty International has now stated that there are no more political prisoners in Cuba. This didn't occur as a result of Cuba bending to US demands, but of apparently out of sensible dicussions with church leaders(civil society) and possibly some arangements with Spanish authorities. What will be the new excuses?

You say other governments use Cuba as an issue to get more concessions from the "Americanos"? What?  Mr. Cardona, turn around, the real world is this way!  Do you not know that Kennedy's Alliance for Progress was put forward by the US as a way to prevent the people's in Latin America discontent from boiling over and causing similar damage to "US interests" all over  the US' "backyard"? As forseen though by Che Guevara (who you call bloodthirsty so as to attempt to portray him negatively to those who know nothing of the topic) the Alliance for Progress did almost nothing to better the lives of the masses in Latin America who did end up taking up arms in various countries in search of an end to the injustices and dictatorships supported by the US (good dictatorships that did the business of Washington). Every government in South and Central America broke diplomatic relations and trade with Cuba except Mexico. That seems to suggest that these countries tried to impress the US instead of using Cuba as a way to "wring concessions" from them as you claim.

You are curious to know how the US would respond to Cuba firing upon its own people? I guess you may be left to wonder unless Washington has plans to dress some mercenaries in Cuban uniforms and stage an event for the cameras similar to what was twarted once in the 1960's when people dressed in Cuban uniforms working for the US were supposed to fire upon the Guantanamo base so we could say Cuba attacked us. It was called "Remember the Maine" just in case that little bit of history has escaped you.

Will we ever learn what happened to cause the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion? Seriously sir, most people already know why it failed so miserably. There seems to be relatively few people still scratching their heads wondering about that. Most of those wondering are the same people that think the hard-line policy towards Cuba is somehow logical and productive.

Why should Cuba be different? I don't think it should be.  The extremists in Miami and Washington ( and a couple in New Jersey) try to make it seem so.  Cuba should be treated with the same repect that any soveriegn country should be given. Ask yourself that question. Try to have more objective thoughts about it and you may find yourself an answer.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/02/2145932/cubans-ask-why-should-cuba-be.html#ixzz1KaEtOIxo