Thursday, March 29, 2007

The Biggest Cocksucking In Cuban-American Blog History

I Hang My Head in Shame [As Well You Might]
by Val Prieto (as annotated by Manuel A. Tellechea)

The majority of the time I live my life with the utmost pride that I am a Cuban exile, [you mean that there are times when you have not felt proud to be a Cuban-American?] and that I have never been and never will be part and parcel of that communist scourge that plagues the island of my birth [having left the island at age 3 that would hardly be possible and whatever credit is owed in that regard belongs to your parents]. Yet there are moments, very few and very far between, that a profound and all encompassing sense of shame of being a Cuban Exile envelops me [yes, we know, you have already unbosomed yourself].

As I type this, I live in that envelop [envelope?]. Never have I ever felt such embarrassment and such remorse and self-disgust [at being a Cuban-American, again].

I just got off the phone with Emilio Estefan [some people feel enriched just talking to a semi-billionaire] and I will state here publicly [is there any other way?], in no uncertain terms, that he and Gloria deserve an apology from each and every one of us [you don't say?] for our trampling of their reputations [do you speak for yourself or everybody else?] vis-a-vis their upcoming album 90 Millas [so which has been trampled, their reputations or the album? Their album is an unknown quantity and the Estefans themselves will shortly prove one too]. I feel ashamed simply for even having the slightest doubt as to their convictions, whether or not I stated these publicly or not [so you are apologizing for what was in your heart, the secrets of which only you know, like Jimmy Carter?].

So here it is, like it or not:

I support Gloria and Emilio Estefan's new work 90 Millas completely and wholeheartedly [although you have never seen it nor do you know its contents] and I will not allow [even if I must resort to censorship] any further slander of their persons [if published it's libel, not slander] or conviction [?] on this blog. It seems, my first instinct were 100% correct when Henry posted on this subject last week [really, 100%! That's infallibility. I think you may fall a little short of that].

No one here knows what is exactly on that album [and neither do you].

No one here knows what conversations the Estefans had prior, during and after the recording with Carlos Santana [and neither do you, except on Estefan's authority, which for you is vox dei].

No one here knows what the album is truly about [you said that already], who else is featured on same and what the accompanying documentary features and focuses on [but we do know that the "Che"-loving Castro (p)sycophant Carlos Santana will be featured there].

Moreover, you can criticize their music til your hearts content [no, that's what the critics do], but as I've stated here and elsewhere, the Estefans have been impeccable examples of the Cuban exile community their entire lives [yes, the Oprah and Stedman of Cuban-Americans] and have represented our community and its convictions with dignity, class and honesty [and don't forget altruism], with little or no thought to their professional careers [is there even one minute in the last 30 years that their careers have not been at the center of their thoughts and lives?] and despite being in an industry where their particular views - our views - [are you sure their views are our views?] are less, much less, than popular and constantly criticized and denigrated [the Estefans are Democrats, friends of Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela and champions of all the liberal causes; their liberal political allies have certainly never denigrated them].

There are some folks out their who are of the belief that the Estefans dont do enough for the freedom of Cuba given their public exposure and notoriety [in fact, they do nothing for the Cuban cause compared to what they do for liberal causes]. To those folks all I can say is you are dead wrong [about what? The Estefans have never contributed anything but lipservice to any Cuban cause, including Elian]. While they may not be constantly in the news spouting the evils of fidel castro and his regime, they have taken on industries, kings, presidents, the United Nations and countless other people and entities ["taken them on," you say? That means that they have met with world leaders who were sympathetic to Castro. Well, one, at least, Nelson Mandela and they didn't "take him on"]. That implies that they have met enemies of [what?] and are always fighting for what all of you here and I are fighting for on a daily basis, only they have been doing so their entire adult lives [oh, the Estefans not only fight more than us but they have been doing it longer than any other exiles. Imagine, two people doing more than 2 million, and still managing, in the process, to make a half-billion dollars!].

Our passion sometimes get the better of us [you don't say?] and when we jump the gun [yes, a very apropos phrase, that about 'jumping the gun'], as in this case [really?], we only hurt ourselves and our cause [you are right there]. And then we certainly live up to that stigma that we are always trying to rectify [how can one "live up" to a "stigma"? Do you mean that we deserve the "stigma"? You must because you say we are trying to "rectify" it].

In the words of Emilio: "Some of the comments directed at me and Gloria questioning our convictions as Cubans and as exiles are like mentandome la madre" [no they are not. Besides, why should it matter to Emilio Estefan if any of his compatriots "question his convictions" if he and Gloria actually lived up to them? What, they haven't gotten enough of their usual brown-assing quota from the community this month? Well, you've just got them over that hump.].

I apologize to Gloria and Emilio, personally [that is your right], for any discord or detriment this blog may have caused and I hope you all will do the same [yes, sir, with all deliberate speed, let all of us bow before their power and wealth as you do].

Update: I forgot to menton that Emilio will be issuing a press release tonight or tomorrow regarding this which Ill post as soon as it's recieved [that is true and to your credit].

Someone [Henry?] mentioned to me that perhaps Emilio may be doing some PR damage control and that perhaps the call and the subsequent media appearances - Emilio was on a phone interview on TV just after speaking to me - are an attempt to diffuse waht could be a major issue regarding 90 Millas. That may be so [what else could it be? Does Emilio call you everyday?], but from my conversation and what I took from it, he is more angry about criticisms regarding their convictions from their own community. That said and my conversation being off the record, time will most certainly tell [and within the hour]. Should I have been duped or be wrong, Ill be the first to publicly eat crow [while still continuing to defend them].

Posted by Val Prieto
Babalu Blog
March 27, 2007


Steve ("Klotz" As In "Blood") said...

Manuel: welcome to the blogosphere! And good luck. Looking forward to reading, linking, and commenting where appropriate.

Now please tell us this about your virgin post: what the hell are you talking about?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


Thank you most cordially and congratulations on becoming the first visitor to the Review of Cuban-American Blogs.

I'm afraid that this is a rather esoteric blog and that you shall have few occasions to link to it as your inability to understand the first post presages.

Gloria and Emilio Estefan's new album, entitled 90 Millas [90 Miles], features, among other objectionable performers, Carlos Santana, who wore a "Che" Guevara t-shirt to the 2004 Oscars, proudly displaying it to the press and proudly proclaiming that "'Che' is my man." A controversy has arisen regarding whether the Estefans should have invited an apologist for Guevara to collaborate on an album which honors Cuba (Guevara himself dishonored Cuba for every second that he lived in our country).

Val Prieto of Babalú blog has become the Estefans' voluntary chief defender and Emilio honored him with a personal phone call, which must have been the highlight of Val's life, though it filled him with indescribable remorse, which he vented in the long jeremiah which is the subject of my first post as annotated by me). Let it be duly noted that Val had never said one word of criticism of the Estefans on his blog; he flogs himself for what he thought. And he flogs all other Cuban-Americans as well. He must think he our our moral conscience. Such presumption could not go unchallenged, and practically every comment on that thread does indeed challenge Val's blind and consistently belligerant defense of the Estefans.

Things became even more heated when the Estefans issued an apology that wasn't an apology, quoting approvingly a statement made by Santana's representatives in 2004 which wasn't in the least an apology. In a nutshell, his publicists claimed that Santana was honoring the "good" Che, not the bad "Che." The Estefans accepted this explanation without batting an eye, which presupposes that they also think that there is a "good" "Che" and a bad "Che."

You have to start reading the Cuban blogs, Steve. They are not in Spanish. Start with the link to babalu at the end of my first post.

And, thank-you, Steve, for being the only blogger in my acquaintance who doesn't restrict free speech or threaten to ban visitors because their opinions do not exactly jell with his own. As in your blog, everyone is welcome here. Nutcases too. Especially nutcases.

Alex said...

Nutcases will fit right in. Welcome to the blogosphere Manuelito! Damn, even in your own blog you still leech off others...

Oh well.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


Thank-you for your good wishes. I have enough protections around me to save myself from them, too.

I have always been in the blogosphere: I am the un-blogger who blogged on other people's blogs and co-opted them. A pioneer, really.

It is you and Henry, the odd couple of Cuban-American blogging, who convinced me by your rudeness and puerility -- yours acquired in Cuba and Henry's here, but perfectly matched -- to set-up my own blog.

Do you know what a Review is. Perhaps if I spelt it in French you will know what I mean? Revue? You see, Alex, this blog is indeed a leech. It subsists on other people's matter. That's what reviews do. Buy yourself a copy of The New York Review of Books. (Oh, but that's your Bible. It tells you what to think about everything).

You are, of course, welcome here as the Ultima Thule of the nutcases. And I will treat you with more consideration than you ever treated me on Rick's blog.

Uncommon Sense said...

Hi Manuel - Welcome of the discussion, and best of luck with your new blog, wherever it goes. I am skeptical of your intent, but we'll see how it goes. MRM

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


Thank-you for your kind wishes of a kind. I am sure that they will be the only public ones which a babalu contributer will ever extend to me.

Skepticism is a quality we share with all God's creatures except idiots, so I don't hold your skepticism against you. In fact, I consider St. Thomas to be the greatest of the Apostles precisely because he dared to question the one fact of all facts that needed to be questioned.

As for my "intent," it should be rather obvious: to tell the inconvenient truth. Please let me know if I ever deviate from the truth. Obviously, I haven't so far, since you raised no objections.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

...Tellechea, little milquetoast that he is, only sends bombs of the written kind. — Alex of SotP on "Klotz" As In "Blood."

...Yeah, little written bombs that make you flee in terror.

Your chief worry now is about not being featured on my blog: the May Day queen who was not asked to the ball. I have not decided yet whether Stuck on the Palmetto qualifies as a “Cuban-American” blog because of your presence thereon and Rick’s obsession with defaming Cuban exiles. It’s a close call. You would certainly be included if you jumped from Rick’s blog to Val’s. There are rumors on the grapevine and ,oh, do I hope they are true!

I understand that now you are buddies with Val, not just Henry. Maybe you can take Val on the Freedom Trail, too. He has much to learn on the subject and so do you.

Leave a Reply

Alex said...

That is funny. Listen whenever you want me to comment on your blog, just ask. You don't need to copy and paste.

BTW, why don't you chase tarts your own age?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


You are always welcome here; stop by whenever the spirit moves you. You offered me a home for a long time and now I am happy, in the Cuban-style, to reciprocate. Actually, you put me up in the attic with the rats and fed me gruel, but I harbor no hard feelings. You are who you are without pretenses, as known a quantity to me as if I knew you all your life. Others wear masks and the purpose of this blog is to unmask them.

Something else about you that distinguishes you for the better from Val and Henry is that you would never have let me say what I've said here without at least trying to refute me. Even if impossible, you would still have tried. But your friends are probably wiser to stay quiet, light a candle and pray for my demise.

Of course, whenever you say even one word about me on any other blog, it will end up here with my reaction. I call it inclusive blogging.

There is a surfeit of tarts my age: since the ratio is 120 females to 1 male. In fact, tarts don't grow sweeter with age, on the contrary, they become more acidic, or, better yet, vinegary. Still, I think three fat 20 year olds are still better than the best "preserved" 60 year old and life goes on.

Alex said...

Got me lost there.

BTW I do have a Cuban blog. It's by invitation only. But you'll like the title: Neither thistle nor searocket.

Uncommon Sense said...

Manuel - About the only thing I have learned for sure about blogging is that to each blogger, his or own. When I started Uncommon Sense, I had no idea what I was doing and no idea what it would become what it is today. (If I had waited for "inspiration," I probably would have never started.) With that in mind, I would never tell or even suggest to you or another blogger what they should do with their space.

My skepticism with what you have started here is your discussion of the personalities of other bloggers, and not just their pronouncements. Some bloggers write more about themselves than I have ever been comfortable writing about myself, so I guess that makes them fair game. I think you have some interesting insights on our fellow bloggers, and you express them well — and many of them may be true.

You have written about people I am proud to call my friends and colleagues, even though we don't always agree. I just cringe at the harsh tone of some of what you have written, worried that such talk can be distracting from what I think is our pursuit of a common goal.

I am not suggesting that we shouldn't be held accountable for what we write — some days, that's what I need most. I just hope it wouldn't get so personal.


Manuel A.Tellechea said...


I have been blogging for years on other bloggers' blogs. In fact, I believe I was a pioneer in that respect. Some welcomed me with open arms, as they saw 100+ comments on their threads for the first time and their daily numbers skyrocket. Others felt resentful and could not quite enjoy "their" success. Still others accused me of trying to co-opt their blogs. Few were grateful in the end. But none, except Val Prieto, ever booted me from his blog. Val did this to me last week when he issued an ultimatum against any criticism of the Estefans (our secular saints) and kicked me off because I had violated his ultimatum before he actually issued it. When apprised of this fact, Val suspended the suspension, which lasted for appropriately 20 minutes. But, of course, by then it was too late. His "Te ganaste la lotería. Bye-bye" was engraved in my mind as a challenge and the challenge has been met and then some. I am sure (in fact, I know) that Val regrets this more than anything he's ever done in his blog career. What he should actually regret was his shameless adulation of the Estefans' wealth and success (nothing like which I have ever read before nor hope ever to read again; it's almost medieval in its sycophancy).

Everything that I write, Marc, is true. How could it be otherwise? I don't make-up this lousy stuff: they do. I merely weed-out their inanities. It is actually a service which I am performing for them.

Harsh tone, you say? It is obvious that you are not acquainted with my writings against fidelistas. Now, those are harsh. I'll post an example later for your edification and enjoyment.

I am surprised that you wrote me, and must warn you, in all fairness, that any further contact with me will probably damage your friendship with Val and Henry. Do not blame me if it does. It is you who wrote me first.

I understand you are the only professional journalist among the Cuban-American bloggers. I too have dabbled in journalism, as an amateur, of course. Back in the early 80s, I used to contribute articles to the "Americas" column of The Wall Street Journal.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


So you belong to a country club that excludes Batista; oh, excuse me, a website from which I, Manuel A. Tellechea, not Batista, am excluded? And this website is named after the most horrible translation of a Martí verse ever attempted by any human hand? "Skyrocket?" ("Sky rockets in flight. Afternoon delight?")

Oh my God! And, of course, you don't know that I am the leading authority on the Versos Sencillos.

So I am not good enough for your secret anti-masonic website? There you must confide the real truths of your life which you conceal from the rest of us, such as your unspeakably horrible and unidyllic childhood in Cuba.

Alex said...

Searocket Manuelito, searocket. Cakile edentula.

And yeah, you are not good enough.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


I was making a joke, you dumbskull. Actually, "searocket" is worse. Forget about oruga. It's a printer's error. It's supposed to be ortiga. It makes no sense as "searocket."

Alex said...

Leading authority indeed:

"Las Obras completas de Martí, publicadas por la Editorial Nacional de Cuba (1963-1965), y reproducidas, en 1975, por el Instituto Cubano del Libro, acatan lo que Martí escribió y publicó, como también lo acatan Cintio Vitier, Fina García Marruz y Emilio de Armas, del Centro de Estudios Martianos, encargados de publicar, en edición crítica, la Poesía completa del poeta y prócer cubano. (La misma que en 1998 publicó en México la UNAM en su colección Diversa, cuando Marco Antonio Campos llevaba el Programa Editorial de la Coordinación de Humanidades.)

Ninguna buena edición incluye la ortiga espuria. En la edición de Porrúa (1973) de los Versos sencillos, prologada por Raimundo Lazo, la oruga de Martí sigue siendo oruga, lo mismo que en la Antología general de Martí (México, SEP, Clásicos Americanos, 1982), preparada por Jaime Labastida. Las ediciones que contienen el verso "cardo ni ortiga cultivo" son las más descuidadas, como el tomo de las Poesías completas de Martí, de la Editorial Claridad (Buenos Aires, 1983, tercera edición)."

And here's some information about the plant:

Pathetic Manuelito. Simply pathetic.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


It really is impossible to joke with you anymore. I called you "dumbskull" because you missed my joke and your reaction is to infer that I am saying that you have never read Martí (as if that were possible). Trust me, you don't have to prove to me that you've read Martí. If you were telling me that you had never read Martí, then I should be skeptical.

There have always been two camps among Martí scholars, especially those who have devoted themselves to his poetry: they may be defined as the "orugas" and the "ortigas." I favor the latter choice because the first makes no sense. I would rather believe that it was a printer's error than that Martí would have committed such an infelicity. The Cuban people, incidentally, have instinctively embraced "ortiga" as the only viable alternative. It is a fine subject for a study and I will post it on my never-visited José Martí website, which is hanging with cobwebs. Perhaps you will visit it and present your arguments in favor of "orugas."

Let's be honest: in English the "searocket" kills the poem by dazzling the reader with a very peculiar word that stops him in his tracks, and, in effect, preempts the poem. By the time searocket is explained — and there is no reasonable explanation for its presence — it's too late: the poem's spontaneity and charm is lost and cannot be recovered. I think "searocket" would kill any poem.

Incidentally, the Centro de Estudios Martianos in Havana is publishing currently, under the personal guidance of Cintio Vitier, a new Critical Edition of the Obras Completas, which is now on the ninth of a projected 45 volumes (a Japaneses foundation is paying to print it). Volume 7 is devoted in its entirety to reproducing Martí articles which Carlos Ripoll and me discovered over the years and publish both in a limite edition and Cuban Studies. We are even credited in the prologue by the editors. Of course the articles were reproduced from our book without our knowlege or permission. But I have no personal objection to their inclusion in any edition of Martí's works, which is the patrimony of all Cubans.

Alex said...

Well, you can believe whatever you want. But it is "oruga". There are no "ortigas" (nettles) in Cuba. Neither are "orugas" but they exist in Spain, where Marti wrote the poem.

As for the joke, try making a funny one.

Val Prieto said...


You know, it's a shame that your very first blog post on your brand spanking new blog is not only a persoanl attack on me, a fellow Cuban-American and the person that has been blogging about the realities of Cuba the longest, but is a perfect example of the problem the Cuban-American community has had for almost fifty years: attacking their own rabidly, injustfiably and publicly for simply having a differing opinion - EVEN IF SAID ATTACK-EE IS ON THE VERY SAME SIDE AS THE ATTACKER.

You are no doubt a learned person, very intelligent (albeit somewhat vain) with much more knowledge than I about most subjects vis-a-vis Cuba, yet, if this first post is any indication - and to me it certainly is - then you are an embarrassment to the Cuban-American community whose actions in this post, justify every single word on the very same post of mine you criticize.

Proof's in the pudding, as they say.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


Welcome to my blog, Val. I won't thank you for your good wishes because none were proffered; but your presence here, at least, and your generally conciliatory tone, so out of character, are unexpected and also welcome.

Yes, we are on the same side, but this does not require that we march in lockstep. In fact, though your goals are worthy in the main, your methods are not always so.

I did not pick this fight with you; it is you who forced it upon me. All I did was respond to your challenge, which I could hardly leave unanswered. If anything it is you who pushed me against a wall and left me no other alternative than to speak the truth which I could only hint at on your blog without falling prey to censorship or ouster.

I appreciate the words you say here about me being a learned person, knowing more than you about Cuba, etc., but your words of praise do not match your actions, which tell me that you have absolutely no respect for me or what I represent. Indeed, your actions show unconcealed disdain and hostility. I do not know the basis of this gratuitous rancor and shall not attribute it to the obvious causes. I know only its effects.

In one moment, in fact, in one minute, to be precise, you made me understand how unwanted I was on your blog and the depths of your almost reflexive resentment of me.

You may be sure, however, that if you attack my positions here or even my character (which I never did to you on Babalú), I shall placidly allow you to have your say and only then proceed to have mine. I will never censor you or boot you from your blog, as you did to me without explanation or warning, simply to show that you could and would do it, even to me. "It is useful to hang an admiral now and then; it encourages the others."

Yes, it is shameful that you should do something like that to one of your own; and stupid, too, because you were not actually "hanging" me but rather setting me free.

Although that was not your intent, I thank you nonetheless.

Songuacassal said...

MT: I still kind of wish you took my suggestion back at your other blog and make one on Jose Marti. Perhaps historic commentary and application for today. (maybe you can do both?)

Manuel A.Tellechea said...


I do have a blog on José Martí, also on, which has never been visited by anyone. There I offered to answer any questions on Martí which my readers might present me with: the offer still stands but there are no questions because there were no readers. Still your suggestion is one that I deeply wish to bring to fruition, and now that this blog has achieved some small success, I may use it as a vehicle to re-launch my Martí blog.