Monday, April 2, 2007

Val Prieto Visits

Manuel,

You know, it's a shame that your very first blog post on your brand spanking new blog is not only a personal 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.




Val:

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.


Val Prieto said...

I suppose that "cocksucker" post was a satire, then, no Manuel?


Val:

First of all, it was not the "cocksucker post," but the cocksucking post. If I had called you a "cocksucker" it would mean that you were a cocksucker, had always been a cocksucker and would always be a cocksucker. But that was not what I meant or what I said. Your defense of the Estefans was, however, the biggest cocksucking in the history of Cuban-American blogs. No one, I think, will disagree with that assessment. Not even you. I am sure, in fact, that your embarrassing pledge of allegiance to the Estefans now embarrasses even you. Why else would you yourself admit that you had "to eat crow?" Better eat crow than what you were eating.

As for my deconstruction of your remarks, there were elements of satire in it, among other things. Your loyalty oath to the Estefans certainly lent itself to satire, among other things.

11 comments:

Val Prieto said...

I suppose that "cocksucker" post was a satire, then, no Manuel?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Val:

First of all, it was not the "cocksucker post," but the cocksucking post. If I had called you a "cocksucker" it would mean that you were a cocksucker, had always been a cocksucker and would always be a cocksucker. But that was not what I meant or what I said. Your defense of the Estefans was, however, the biggest cocksucking in the history of Cuban-American blogs. No one, I think, will disagree with that assessment. Not even you. I am sure, in fact, that your embarrassing pledge of allegiance to the Estefans now embarrasses even you. Why else would you yourself admit that you had "to eat crow?" Better eat crow than what you were eating.

As for my deconstruction of your remarks, there were elements of satire in it, among other things. Your loyalty oath to the Estefans certainly lent itself to satire, among other things.

Jose Aguirre said...

Caballeros, we are all on the same side and against the castro brothers. Let's try to get beyond our personal diferences so we can concentrate on all that we have in common. Of course we will often not see things in the same exact way, but through intelligent discussions we can improve our decisions. I think Val's position evolved during the initial E$tefan$/Santana matter because he listened to a lot of opinions.

As my treat, I would like to invite Manuel and Val to join me for lunch at any Cuban restaurant of your choice any day this week.

Robert said...

Manuel,

I never thought you were one to twist words like our favorites from the left often do.

Cocksucking. Cocksucker. Any way you slice the jamón, Manuel, it's an insult.

As far as Val's respect for the Estefans' track record, you can certainly disagree. But don't you think that you could have done so tactfully?

Of course, that would have meant you letting go of your immense ego for just a few minutes, something you have a hard time doing.

We can be faulted for our overreaching loyalty. That's fine. But I would rather be "too loyal" to an old friend that has let us down, an admiral trait no doubt, than be too loyal to our own overinflated egos.

Too bad. You have proven to have the ability to use your intelligence to fight against the real enemy, but instead you choose to battle your own.

Manuel, with your attitude you will always sit on a lonely, deserted island.

Sincerely,

Robert

Robert said...

That should be "admirable trait".

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

josé aguirre:

Your remarks on Babalú blog (which Val has just deleted along with the whole "I Am A Cocksucker" post and thread) do not make you an acceptable arbiter. Thank-you for your invitation, anyway.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Robert:

You echo Val very nicely. But then again, you always do.

Even if I were on a "lonely deserted island" I would still be in good company.

And serve the jamón to Val. He needs a change of diet.

Jose Aguirre said...

Manuel, I think we would have an enjoyable lunch and find that we actually may even like each other. I never meant to imply I could be any sort of arbiter. I hope you reconsider as I know I would really enjoy getting to meet both of you.

Manuel, you can name the restaurant.

Un abrazo, Jose

Robert said...

Jose,

Ni te molestes. It's obvious Manuel wants to stand on his own two feet and leave his ego intact, no matter how noble your intentions are.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Robert:

How do you propose that I should stand except "on my own two feet?" How do you stand?

killcastro said...

“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.”

Now *I* find this rather fascinating because if memory serves me right my partner CB and myself were blasted with the outmost acrimony and truculence in our OWN blog by the author of the preceding paragraph.

I think I was accused of having NO morals and being a ñangara.. Yea that was part of the attack.

The reasoning for the attack..? I asked in the most constructive way I could
“What type of Cuban are you?”
That was IT…. And his vitriolic tirade began, followed by volleys from some of his more ardent sycophants as well as that of his niece.

So what do *I* see here now? That Cuban-Americans should NOT insult each other just because they differ on an opinion?

Is this a moral growth taking place in front of us or are we seeing bipolar hypocrisy from someone whom you never are quite sure where he stands.

But, wait let us notice the subtle claim to ownership of the blogsphere as far as Cuban issues are concerned:

“the person that has been blogging about the realities( realities filtered through the eyes of the media by the way , since the man has absolutely no contacts with anyone in Cuba) of Cuba the longest,”

Not only is THAT a lie since there were forums (the precursor to “blogging” ) regarding the realities of Cuba on Prodigy in the year 1989, but the unmitigated EGO, the self declaration of ownership! God, THAT you just have to love.

I guess THAT gives HIM the right to insult other Cuban-Americans who disagree with him while admonishing the ones who behave exactly the way he does.
It is good to be KING, ain’t it ?

What is most amazing is that Mr. T and us; although having VERY heated debates not once did we stoop to personal attacks. So it is interesting to see someone condemning his own rules of engagement as far as difference of opinions are concerned. INTERESTING INDEED!

If nothing else Manuel, this has been a fascinating little exercise in purging hypocrisy and double standards and bringing it to the light of day.

I guess vanity and hypocrisy do make for a very ugly profile even if you are KING!