I do not know what compelled Henry Gómez first to appoint himself Oscar Biscet's campaign manager and now his speechwriter. I suppose he feels great admiration for Cuba's most-honored prisoner of conscience and wishes to assist him in any way he can. This is entirely laudable and one of the few instances where Henry's enthusiasm has found a worthy subject. Frauds like the rocker Sting and Fred "Cubans are Suitcase Bombers" Thompson, on which Henry has also expended considerable amounts of emotional capital, are not deserving of anybody's public adulation, not even Henry's. The odd thing, however, is that Henry's misplaced admiration has not caused any harm to befall Sting or Thompson; but his desire to be Biscet's volunteer-everything has nearly gotten the poor man killed.
Earlier this year Henry got the idea that Biscet should run for president of Cuba from his prison cell. Yes, Henry wanted Biscet to endorse the existing communist system by agreeing to be a candidate in its sham elections. Biscet's wife, terrified at the prospect of what might happen to her husband if Henry's idea took off, had to beg him to desist before he got her husband killed.
Of course, Henry's vision of Oscar Biscet as president of Cuba never entirely died. For Henry, it was only a dream deferred and not very long. The award of the Medal of Freedom to Biscet provided Henry with the opportunity he was waiting for to revive Biscet's campaign. This time Henry did not appoint himself Biscet's campaign manager but his speechwriter, which he probably thought less presumptious and hence less objectionable. But is it? What could be more presumptuous than to speak for a man without his permission or even his being aware of it? Presumptuousness is the least of it. It is down right insulting, condescending and presumptuous to put words in Oscar Biscet's mouth. If his torturers could not do it, what makes Henry think that he has the right to? It is no exaggeration to say that there is a virtual ocean which separates Henry from the experiences of Oscar Biscet without even factoring character into the equation. One who has never walked in Oscar Biscet's shoes should not presume to tell him where to go. Even if Henry's intentions are the purest, it is still a signal act of disrespect to the man. Matters were not helped, either, by the insertion of a photoshop of Oscar Biscet addressing the United Nations, presumably as Cuba's democratically-elected president. Hasn't Biscet's wife already warned Henry about that? Does Henry believe that in the last 6 months what was unacceptable then is suddenly acceptable now? Or does Henry value the idea of an Oscar Biscet more than he does the man himself? Oscar Biscet is not an expendable man and the one thing that Cuba does not need is another martyr. May God protect Oscar Biscet from Henry and others who think that they know what is best for him.
Earlier this year Henry got the idea that Biscet should run for president of Cuba from his prison cell. Yes, Henry wanted Biscet to endorse the existing communist system by agreeing to be a candidate in its sham elections. Biscet's wife, terrified at the prospect of what might happen to her husband if Henry's idea took off, had to beg him to desist before he got her husband killed.
Of course, Henry's vision of Oscar Biscet as president of Cuba never entirely died. For Henry, it was only a dream deferred and not very long. The award of the Medal of Freedom to Biscet provided Henry with the opportunity he was waiting for to revive Biscet's campaign. This time Henry did not appoint himself Biscet's campaign manager but his speechwriter, which he probably thought less presumptious and hence less objectionable. But is it? What could be more presumptuous than to speak for a man without his permission or even his being aware of it? Presumptuousness is the least of it. It is down right insulting, condescending and presumptuous to put words in Oscar Biscet's mouth. If his torturers could not do it, what makes Henry think that he has the right to? It is no exaggeration to say that there is a virtual ocean which separates Henry from the experiences of Oscar Biscet without even factoring character into the equation. One who has never walked in Oscar Biscet's shoes should not presume to tell him where to go. Even if Henry's intentions are the purest, it is still a signal act of disrespect to the man. Matters were not helped, either, by the insertion of a photoshop of Oscar Biscet addressing the United Nations, presumably as Cuba's democratically-elected president. Hasn't Biscet's wife already warned Henry about that? Does Henry believe that in the last 6 months what was unacceptable then is suddenly acceptable now? Or does Henry value the idea of an Oscar Biscet more than he does the man himself? Oscar Biscet is not an expendable man and the one thing that Cuba does not need is another martyr. May God protect Oscar Biscet from Henry and others who think that they know what is best for him.
Does Biscet really need a speech writer?
ReplyDeleteOratory has always been a forte for Latin politicians (and NO, Biscet is not an AfroCuban because such a thing does not exists, we are just Cubans, white, black, Asian, or whatever else, always CUBAN first, later, and foremost) so it's hard to believe that Biscet would ever employ a speech writer. A politician should think, write, and express himself in his own words, and a politician should not be a resonance board or box for anyone else.
By the way, who says that Biscet would be the next president of Cuba? We need not an appointed "head" of State, we need elections, free elections, and whomever gets elected gets elected. Even if I don't like the person, that's the rule and that's the law. If I don't like the person (nothing tells me that I will, unfortunately) I will fight his/her rule from the democratic standpoint.
How can one like Biscet and like also Fred Bubblehead Thompson will also remain a mystery to me. Both men are the opposite of one another!
charlie:
ReplyDeleteIt's a toss-up as to who was Cuba's most eloquent orator after Martí: some say Juan Gualberto Gómez and others Manuel Sanguily. In any case, all three were of one heart and one mind, and cannot be distinguished by something so insignificant as color. It is ludicrous for Henry Gómez to pretend that he speaks for Biscet or that Biscet would need someone to speak for him. I should like to think that Henry's motives are well meaning even if his judgment is flawed. I would really be angry if I though that Henry's motive for putting words in Biscet's mouth was based on the erroneous conceit that he could do it better than Biscet because he is white; angry but not surprised, because Henry's ignorance of our history might well lead him to that conclusion, although said ignorance would really have to be massive, fortress-like and impermeable.