The New Republic Takes on Val Prieto

A few observations on Val's appearance today in The New Republic:

First of all, it is not The New Republic magazine, so Val shouldn't rush out and buy every copy in sight. Ms. Barclay's article appears only in the Online Edition so Val will have to distribute it as a broadsheet. He is free, though, to add "Shat Upon by The New Republic (Online)" to his masthead, as this negative recognition tends to flatter and amuse him.

Second, there is the question of categoría. Val not only comes off as second banana to Pérez Hilton but is not even accorded his rightful titles as founder and editor-in-chief of Babalú but is described as "a Miami-based blogger for Babalú." This is unfair since we are sure that the institution will never overshadow the man, nor would Val want it to.

Third, Ms. Barclay quotes a completely ungrammatical sentence from Val's pen:

"Isn't it reasonable to think that the Cuban government, as long as it has dumbasses, useful idiots and [mainstream media] journalists held by the balls, all swallowing the "fidel's ok, here's his latest editorial" bullshit soup, that it will continue to do so unfettered and without consequence?"

Removing all the the sub-clauses, the sentence reads:

"Isn't it reasonable to think that the Cuban government [...] that it will continue to do so unfettered and without consequence?"

Grammatical sentences are actually in the majority in Val's writings, so this must sting. When he writes in his natural style Val can be eloquent; I have said it before. It is when he tries his hand at periodic sentences, such as the one Barclay quotes, that Val loses his way and takes the wrong exit.

Fourth, Eliza Barclay is a stooge for Castro who glories in making the Cuban regime sound rational and stable while depicting Cuban exiles as irrational and unstable. Although we must acknowledge that Val gave her some ammunition, in the contest between the two, my sympathies are with Val. He actually wants Castro dead. He might jump the gun (and did), but at least he would shoot the gun. Barclay never would.