[Commenting on the new CBS drama series Cane, the saga of a heterogeneous family of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Colombians who pretend to be Cuban]:
"What's the matter with Hollywood? Don't they realize the unparalled antiquity of our Cuban culture? Heck, I know that (in some fashion or another) we were already a civilization before the Etruscans... before the Greeks and even the Minoans. In addition, we invented the first lightbulb from coconut husks and the first steam engine from fermented sugarcane bagazz [he means "bagasse"]. Forget the Scots, Germans and English... we Cubans invented the modern world. How dare Hollywood use "lesser" nationalities to impersonate a "Hellenistic culture" like ours in a T.V. series. Equally, how dare Amazon.com books sell a book called "Up Dog Street," which invents a Miami nationality identified as "Madrugans" and who control the city with an iron fist. We want to be correctly represented and identified by all these directors and writers, so we can feel adequately insulted and justified in organizing boycotts and demonstrations. Today Hollywood, tomorrow the world!!!!"
Posted by: Jess Martinez @ The Miami Herald Forum, 9/30/2007 2:47 PM
Sunday, September 30, 2007
What Judge Jeri B. Cohen Should Take to Bed Every Night
In case you are unaware of it, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen is a graduate of Harvard Law School (class of 1985). This may explain a great deal because at Harvard Law the law is not on the curriculum. I kid you not. Just slightly before Cohen was admitted Harvard Law School decided that there was more to making a lawyer than teaching him law. Now, instead of reading law, as the old expression was for learning the law, a student is expected to intuit the law from other eclectic studies surrounding, approaching but not quite legal studies.
The 20 years since she graduated from law school do not seem to have supplied the deficiencies of her legal education and now it is probably too late to expect that she can fill all the holes in her knowledge of the law.
But there is a book which I think can help her get a handle on the duties and responsibilities of fatherhood, which are central in this case. In fact, we are surprised that she was never exposed to the book in law school, and she must really have gone through hoops to avoid it in grammar school. It was written by the greatest liberal mind of the 20th century.
The book is still in print and it has many nice pictures to further her enjoyment and comprehension.
The book is called Horton Hatches the Egg by Dr. Seuss.
It's the story of an elephant named Horton who sits on an egg which its mother Lazy Mazie left in its care (or, more accurately, abandoned) while the bird went on an extended vacation in Palm Beach. Horton the Elephant goes through many ordeals protecting and nurturing that egg.
Then the egg hatches and the mother shows up to claim it:
"But it's MINE!" screamed the bird, when she heard the egg crack.
(The work was all done. Now she wanted it back.)
"It's MY egg!" she sputtered. "You stole it from me!
Get off of my nest and get out of my tree!"
Poor Horton backed down
With a sad heavy heart...
But at that very instant, the egg burst apart!
And out of the pieces of red and white shell
From the egg that he'd sat on so long and so well,
Horton the Elephant saw something whizz!
IT HAD EARS
AND A TAIL
AND A TRUNK JUST LIKE HIS! [...]
IT'S AN ELEPHANT-BIRD!
And it should be, it should be, it SHOULD be like that!
Because Horton was faithful! He sat and he sat!
He meant what he said
And he said what he meant...
And an elephant's faithful
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!"
The 20 years since she graduated from law school do not seem to have supplied the deficiencies of her legal education and now it is probably too late to expect that she can fill all the holes in her knowledge of the law.
But there is a book which I think can help her get a handle on the duties and responsibilities of fatherhood, which are central in this case. In fact, we are surprised that she was never exposed to the book in law school, and she must really have gone through hoops to avoid it in grammar school. It was written by the greatest liberal mind of the 20th century.
The book is still in print and it has many nice pictures to further her enjoyment and comprehension.
The book is called Horton Hatches the Egg by Dr. Seuss.
It's the story of an elephant named Horton who sits on an egg which its mother Lazy Mazie left in its care (or, more accurately, abandoned) while the bird went on an extended vacation in Palm Beach. Horton the Elephant goes through many ordeals protecting and nurturing that egg.
Then the egg hatches and the mother shows up to claim it:
"But it's MINE!" screamed the bird, when she heard the egg crack.
(The work was all done. Now she wanted it back.)
"It's MY egg!" she sputtered. "You stole it from me!
Get off of my nest and get out of my tree!"
Poor Horton backed down
With a sad heavy heart...
But at that very instant, the egg burst apart!
And out of the pieces of red and white shell
From the egg that he'd sat on so long and so well,
Horton the Elephant saw something whizz!
IT HAD EARS
AND A TAIL
AND A TRUNK JUST LIKE HIS! [...]
IT'S AN ELEPHANT-BIRD!
And it should be, it should be, it SHOULD be like that!
Because Horton was faithful! He sat and he sat!
He meant what he said
And he said what he meant...
And an elephant's faithful
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!"
Does Henry Want to Resurrect the Undead BUCL?
We thought we had buried BUCL and buried it deep, with a stake in its heart and a garland of garlic around its neck. But we begin to detect the stirrings of life in the monster as the earth shakes around its grave. This should be a matter of concern to all the bloggers in the Babalunian orbit who were begged, cajoled and otherwise inopportuned to join and contribute their mite to Henry Gómez's dream of world conquest founded on the conceit that the same advertising skills which served to sell a given brand of condoms or oven cleaner could prevail in the marketplace of ideas no less than in the supermarket. Perhaps if such a campaign had been spearheaded by somebody else with some actual insight into Cuban history or culture it might have succeeded in doing something constructive for the cause of Cuba's freedom. I hope Henry is a lot better at selling soap than he is at selling ideas. In any case, we are more comfortable with the idea of him selling soap.
BUCL's first campaign, which RCAB followed step by step, as you will recall, was directed at Spain, a country about which Henry and Val know absolutely nothing, not even the language. Whether with a campaign for Palmolive or a "Campaign Against Spain," it really does help to know the language of the targetted country; otherwise, you might end up accusing Spain of "exploding" Cubans rather than exploiting them, as was Henry's second gaffe. (The first was the acronym for his organization which is pronounced BUCKLE, as in collapse or defeat). From there things only got worse.
Henry's biggest mistake, however, was his inability to distinguish between Spain and Spain's Socialist government. The two are not the same. Ironically, Zapatero's Socialists were given a free pass as the BUCLers focused their feeble guns on the Spanish people and their legacy in the Americas. In effect, Henry and Val took a card from Castro's deck, who, in 1992, the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery, proclaimed himself a spiritual Indian and champion of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, denouncing Spanish colonialism as the fountainhead of all of Latin America's problems. We know why Castro did this. He needed a scapegoat during the "Special Period" and Spain was easier to blame for Cuba's problems than Marxism-Leninism. But why the hell did Val bring up the Siboneys in BUCL's "Campaign Against Spain?" Too late to save the Siboneys. We are living in the 21st century, not the 16th; and starting at the beginning is definitely not the best strategy for solving the problems of today. This approach frankly reminded us of the Muslims' obsession with the wrongs of the 13th-century Crusades.
The "Campaign Against Spain," which consisted of putting up three stickers in a New York subway station and another one within 13 blocks of the Spanish consulate in Miami, as well as purchasing ads on Google and posting an illiterate manifesto on Spain's equivalent of DIGG, was what it was: not much.
Finally catching on towards the end of its "Campaign Against Spain" that the enemy was not the motherland but its vastly unpopular Socialist government, BUCL declared victory when the Socialists overwhelmingly lost Spain's municipal elections in June. We were glad for that; let them claim as many "victories" as they want if they will only stop from making fools of themselves and all Cubans.
Having been cured of their taste for future jihads against entire nations and peoples, BUCL next took on Sting and the Police, not in an aggressive way, but as worshipful supplicants for their favor. Having heard a rumor that they would be playing a free concert in Cuba, the BUCLers embraced them as Cuba's future liberators. Only one little problem: these guys were Marxists who had no intention of saying nary a word against Castro's regime. This didn't stop Henry from accosting the group's guitarist at the Versailles or flying a cropduster with a banner beseeching Sting to say a word about human rights in Cuba at his concert in Miami. No word was said. Not even a nod. They were probably lucky that he was too high to read the banner; otherwise he might have sneered at it.
We thought that BUCL had expired in the wake of its failure to coax even one word of support from Sting for human rights in Cuba. There was no way to claim "victory" there. They had invested real money and great emotional capital on Sting's conversion and the return was nil. All BUCLers, besides Henry, breathed a collective sigh of relief. Maybe the embarrassment and financial drain was finally over. The less said about it the better. Let people forget the forgettable.
But no. Henry would not leave well enough alone. In a post by Ziva yesterday rightly criticizing the Socialist government's continued coddling of Castro, in the midst, even, of the regime's latest crackdown on dissidents, Henry appended this postscript:
"You'll remember that we were criticized heavily, both by domestic and Spanish bloggers, for our first Bloggers United for Cuban Liberty campaign denouncing Spain's cooperation with repression in Cuba. We were right to denounce it then, and we are right to denounce it now."
"Criticized heavily?" Yes, here. And by Killcastro. So much for the "domestic" bloggers. The Spanish bloggers, as I pointed out then, the BUCLers declined to engage other than by posting their illiterate manifesto on the aforementioned Spanish DIGG. As for denouncing "Spain's [i.e. the Socialist government's] cooperation with repression in Cuba," this is not something that the BUCLers invented. Cubans have been denouncing the perfidy of both Socialists and Fascists in Spain for nearly half a century, ever since Franco underwrote the Castro regime in the period between Castro's repudiation of the U.S. and embrace of the Soviets. It was not for naught that Castro declared 9-days mourning in Cuba when his kinsman Francisco Franco died. (I wonder if the Socialists will return the favor when Castro dies).
Henry can sit on his withered laurels if he wants. So long as he doesn't resurrect the undead.
POSTSCRIPT:
Charlie Bravo has an excellent post on this subject entitled "¡Viva España!" at Black Sheep of Exile which merits your attention:
http://blacksheepofexile.blogspot.com/2007/09/viva-espaa.html
More posts on BUCL at RCAB:
BUCKLE
The BUCL Belt: Henry's Imagination Strikes Again
Henry Gómez Accuses Spaniards of "Exploding Cubans"
Is There Anything At All in Henry's Mind On Any Day?
BUCKLE But Don't Tighten Your Belts
BUCL's Siren Song
BUCL's Last Hurrah
BUCL Again
"BUCL Up, It's Gonna be a Bumpy Ride"
BUCL Is Killing Babalú
Dissent Comes At Long Last to Babalú
And From the Peanut Gallery...
Insanity, Homoeroticism and Xenophobia on "The Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour"
Val Praises Fidel's "Charisma" and Moneo Calls Him "One of the Smartest Politicians Who Ever Lived"
BUCL's Bizarreries to End at Versailles Restaurant
BUCL (2007-2007)
BUCL and The Black Legend: Using Racism to "Liberate" Cuba
Babaloo's Waterloos: Spain "Forced Religion" on Cubans
La Raza
BUCL's first campaign, which RCAB followed step by step, as you will recall, was directed at Spain, a country about which Henry and Val know absolutely nothing, not even the language. Whether with a campaign for Palmolive or a "Campaign Against Spain," it really does help to know the language of the targetted country; otherwise, you might end up accusing Spain of "exploding" Cubans rather than exploiting them, as was Henry's second gaffe. (The first was the acronym for his organization which is pronounced BUCKLE, as in collapse or defeat). From there things only got worse.
Henry's biggest mistake, however, was his inability to distinguish between Spain and Spain's Socialist government. The two are not the same. Ironically, Zapatero's Socialists were given a free pass as the BUCLers focused their feeble guns on the Spanish people and their legacy in the Americas. In effect, Henry and Val took a card from Castro's deck, who, in 1992, the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery, proclaimed himself a spiritual Indian and champion of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, denouncing Spanish colonialism as the fountainhead of all of Latin America's problems. We know why Castro did this. He needed a scapegoat during the "Special Period" and Spain was easier to blame for Cuba's problems than Marxism-Leninism. But why the hell did Val bring up the Siboneys in BUCL's "Campaign Against Spain?" Too late to save the Siboneys. We are living in the 21st century, not the 16th; and starting at the beginning is definitely not the best strategy for solving the problems of today. This approach frankly reminded us of the Muslims' obsession with the wrongs of the 13th-century Crusades.
The "Campaign Against Spain," which consisted of putting up three stickers in a New York subway station and another one within 13 blocks of the Spanish consulate in Miami, as well as purchasing ads on Google and posting an illiterate manifesto on Spain's equivalent of DIGG, was what it was: not much.
Finally catching on towards the end of its "Campaign Against Spain" that the enemy was not the motherland but its vastly unpopular Socialist government, BUCL declared victory when the Socialists overwhelmingly lost Spain's municipal elections in June. We were glad for that; let them claim as many "victories" as they want if they will only stop from making fools of themselves and all Cubans.
Having been cured of their taste for future jihads against entire nations and peoples, BUCL next took on Sting and the Police, not in an aggressive way, but as worshipful supplicants for their favor. Having heard a rumor that they would be playing a free concert in Cuba, the BUCLers embraced them as Cuba's future liberators. Only one little problem: these guys were Marxists who had no intention of saying nary a word against Castro's regime. This didn't stop Henry from accosting the group's guitarist at the Versailles or flying a cropduster with a banner beseeching Sting to say a word about human rights in Cuba at his concert in Miami. No word was said. Not even a nod. They were probably lucky that he was too high to read the banner; otherwise he might have sneered at it.
We thought that BUCL had expired in the wake of its failure to coax even one word of support from Sting for human rights in Cuba. There was no way to claim "victory" there. They had invested real money and great emotional capital on Sting's conversion and the return was nil. All BUCLers, besides Henry, breathed a collective sigh of relief. Maybe the embarrassment and financial drain was finally over. The less said about it the better. Let people forget the forgettable.
But no. Henry would not leave well enough alone. In a post by Ziva yesterday rightly criticizing the Socialist government's continued coddling of Castro, in the midst, even, of the regime's latest crackdown on dissidents, Henry appended this postscript:
"You'll remember that we were criticized heavily, both by domestic and Spanish bloggers, for our first Bloggers United for Cuban Liberty campaign denouncing Spain's cooperation with repression in Cuba. We were right to denounce it then, and we are right to denounce it now."
"Criticized heavily?" Yes, here. And by Killcastro. So much for the "domestic" bloggers. The Spanish bloggers, as I pointed out then, the BUCLers declined to engage other than by posting their illiterate manifesto on the aforementioned Spanish DIGG. As for denouncing "Spain's [i.e. the Socialist government's] cooperation with repression in Cuba," this is not something that the BUCLers invented. Cubans have been denouncing the perfidy of both Socialists and Fascists in Spain for nearly half a century, ever since Franco underwrote the Castro regime in the period between Castro's repudiation of the U.S. and embrace of the Soviets. It was not for naught that Castro declared 9-days mourning in Cuba when his kinsman Francisco Franco died. (I wonder if the Socialists will return the favor when Castro dies).
Henry can sit on his withered laurels if he wants. So long as he doesn't resurrect the undead.
POSTSCRIPT:
Charlie Bravo has an excellent post on this subject entitled "¡Viva España!" at Black Sheep of Exile which merits your attention:
http://blacksheepofexile.blogspot.com/2007/09/viva-espaa.html
More posts on BUCL at RCAB:
BUCKLE
The BUCL Belt: Henry's Imagination Strikes Again
Henry Gómez Accuses Spaniards of "Exploding Cubans"
Is There Anything At All in Henry's Mind On Any Day?
BUCKLE But Don't Tighten Your Belts
BUCL's Siren Song
BUCL's Last Hurrah
BUCL Again
"BUCL Up, It's Gonna be a Bumpy Ride"
BUCL Is Killing Babalú
Dissent Comes At Long Last to Babalú
And From the Peanut Gallery...
Insanity, Homoeroticism and Xenophobia on "The Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour"
Val Praises Fidel's "Charisma" and Moneo Calls Him "One of the Smartest Politicians Who Ever Lived"
BUCL's Bizarreries to End at Versailles Restaurant
BUCL (2007-2007)
BUCL and The Black Legend: Using Racism to "Liberate" Cuba
Babaloo's Waterloos: Spain "Forced Religion" on Cubans
La Raza
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Henry Gómez Crushed: Newt Gingrich Will Not Run in 2008
[George Moneo has posted the news of Gingrich's decision not to run in 2008 at Babalú ("Bad News on the U.S. Political Front"). He would have put black borders around the announcement, but since he doesn't know how to do that he had to settle for a plaintive "Damn!" That people who are always accusing other bloggers of being racists should themselves be enamored of this country's preeminent racist (and one who targets them specifically) is one of the mysteries of Babalú. The other is, how did Cubans of that particular and very peculiar ilk find themselves? This is what I wrote on the subject earlier this year:]
From the RCAB Archives, May 31, 2007:
Since He Was 7
"[I]'ve been following presidential politics since I was 7 years old, that's 30 years now, and in order to win the presidency you have to win your party's nomination and, mark my words, Rudy will NEVER be the Republican candidate. First of all he's not a conservative. The Republican base wants someone it can be energized about and [a] liberal NY Republican isn't it. Besides, I think you overestimate Rudy's appeal and ability to beat Hillary. There's only 2 Republicans that I could see as destroying Hillary in a debate and they are Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. I think Thompson brings a lot of the qualities of Gingrich without a lot of the baggage. None of the other candidates in the Republican field is worth a warm bucket of spit."
Posted [on Babalú] by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at May 30, 2007 10:49 PM
It was John Nance Garner, the first of FDR's three vice-presidents and the last American politician born in a log cabin, who first used "warm bucket of spit" to describe the office of vice-president. Some claim that what he actually said was that it wasn't worth a warm bucket of shit, but reporters, in order to publish his remark, were obliged to substitute "shit" for "spit." There is some logic to this assumption, since back then Americans used spitoons not buckets to dispose of excess salivation but did employ buckets, especially in the Deep South whence Garner hailed, as portable outhouses. Whether shit or spit, I don't think, however, that Garner would have had any objection to Henry using that expression to describe a bunch of Republicans.
In fact, one Republican whom Henry exempts from this description Garner would have found much to his liking, fellow southside Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. You see, Garner was the product of his age and place, as apologists for racism once used to say. Never had a more rabid racist ever been one heartbeat away from the presidency since Andrew Johnson. The Democrats chose Garner because he balanced the ticket and was much older than Roosevelt and actually made FDR look young and vigorous in comparison (though Garner was to outlive FDR by nearly 25 years). Still, it shows perhaps a little too much tolerance on FDR's part to have twice chosen as his vice president a man who was not only an enemy of blacks but of all legislation meant to improve the lot of working-class Americans. AFL-CIO head John L. Lewis, speaking to a congressional committee in 1939, called Garner a "labor-baiting, cigar-smoking, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man." [Ah, for the days when public figures actually spoke their minds publicly!]
Garner was an equal opportunity racist and as a congressman had opposed the immigration of "inferior stocks" from Southern Europe, Russia and Asia while "championing" Mexican migrant labor, which he considered a suitable substitute for black slavery with the additional "advantage" that these slaves were "temporary, powerless and easily expelled." Yes, old "Cactus Jack," as Garner was known back home in Texas, is responsible for embracing as a "solution" to high wages and good benefits what is now denounced as a crisis in illegal immigration.
Of course, I am sure that Henry didn't know the source of his quotation, nor, indeed, had ever heard of Garner despite all his precious precociousness at 7 (prodigies usually never fulfill their promise). Yet it is ironic that he appropriates Garner's phrase in a post where he settles for Fred Thompson as his candidate for president only because his real choice Newt Gingrich carries too much "baggage." What he doesn't say is that this baggage consists of a lifetime of nativism and an inveterate hatred for all Hispanics, whom he was the first to demonize nationally as the greatest menace to this Republic since polio. Even old "Cactus Jack" Garner had more sense than that. He knew that they were here to be exploited and approved of their exploitation. Gingrich also knows that it is Americans who exploit the Mexican migrants and not the other way around, but being less honest and more evil than Garner, he makes the beasts of burden his scapegoats. With Gingrich, of course, it is not the fact that they entered this country illegally that offends him. He hates all Hispanics, illegal or legal. That's why he applied all the punitive measures of the "Contract on America" to both alike. So to him it doesn't matter if Hispanics play by the rules or not; they are all a pestilence in his eyes and should be booted from this country.
This is the man that Henry Gómez, who has been following presidential politics since he was 7, desperately wishes he could support for president except for all that "baggage" (which also includes venality and moral turpitude). So poor Henry has to settle for Fred Thompson. We all knew already that Henry considers himself an "American-Cuban," not a "Cuban-American." That is, we all knew already that Cuba comes second with him. What we didn't know is that other Hispanics come last with him.
***
From the RCAB Archives, May 3, 2007
"The Most Serious, Systematic Revolutionary of Modern Times"
The Babalú Radio Hour sans Val this week gave Henry Gómez twice the responsibility to say foolish and idiotic things, and he did not disappoint. There was fodder there this week for several posts and the difficulty for me was deciding on which of so many gaffes to focus. Of course, I could have highlighted all of them if I wanted to, but Henry is merely the prop that I use to educate others. Some of his assertions are so esoteric and sui generis that I am sure that they never occurred to any sensible person before. To correct Henry just for the sake of correcting Henry is no public service, except to increase the amount of laughter in this world, and perhaps that, too, is a commendable goal.
This one was a close call. Could any other Cuban (or Hispanic) in the country seriously consider voting for Newt Gingrich for president besides Henry, who says that he has narrowed his list to Gingrich and Fred Thompson? A close call indeed. In the end I decided that it was highly unlikely that any other Cuban (even the staunchest Republican) would lend his support to Newt Gingrich unless he knew absolutely nothing about him. This, I hope, is the case with Henry, who apparently doesn't know (or care) that Gingrich was the previous generation's Tom Tancredo. Except that Gingrich was never a joke. He was deadly earnest in his xenophobia and 100% successful in implementing "reforms" aimed at destroying this country's Hispanic population. It is doubtful or, rather, impossible that Tancredo will ever become Speaker of the House, let alone president. Gingrich did and as master of Congress orquestrated the re-introduction of chattel slavery in the U.S. and made Hispanics the bondsmen.
Since Cuban-Americans reflexively remove themselves from any equation involving Hispanics (we are white, don't you know?), it is important to point out that Cuban exiles were not exempted from Newt's 1994 "Contract With America" (more accurately described as the "Contract On America.") In fact, Newt Gingrich is second only to Fidel Castro in the number of deaths of Cubans for which he is directly responsible. Ten years ago, thanks to provisions in Newt's "Contract On America" which denied social security and Medicaid benefits to legal residents, elderly Cuban exiles who were not U.S. citizens were committing suicide in Miami on a daily basis rather than face the prospect of homelessness and an ignonimous death on the streets. Dozens are known to have tried and nationally the figure may be in the hundreds since no one really cares to find out what kills the elderly.
Since the time of Newt Gingrich's "Contract on America," I stopped supporting the Republican Party (but could never bring myself to support the Democrats). As originally presented to the American public, Newt's "Contract" would have barred illegal immigrants from receiving welfare benefits. On the basis of that pledge Republicans gained a majority in Congress for the first time since the Eisenhower administration. It was only after the Republicans had captured Congress that Newt revealed his real xenophobic agenda, which encompassed, of course, not only illegal but legal immigrants.
Legal immigrants, who did things "the right way," obeyed immigration laws, paid taxes and were part of the social contract, had the safety net pulled out from under them. Although they were still required to pay income taxes, social security taxes, Medicaid taxes, unemployment insurance taxes — in sum, all taxes — they were not allowed to participate in, or benefit from, the various social programs to which they contributed, but obliged to work to support those same benefits for Newt's parents and Clinton's.
In other words, the Republicans turned all immigrants, legal or not, into non-persons (not even 3/5ths people). And still this was not enough. Now they want to denaturalize the immigrants' U.S.-born children so that they can prevent them from receiving school lunch, or, indeed, bar them from school altogether. The Republican hatred of Hispanics does not exempt children, but targets children specifically. After all, it is a demographic war.
Gingrich has done his best to contribute to that demographic war (the other kind of war he simply dodges) by asking his cancer-stricken (and barren) wife for a divorce on her deathbed so that he could marry his girlfriend, and then, while excoriating Clinton for his infidelities, engaged in adulteries of his own, which he now admits. He must have decided, at some point, that copulation was not the way to win the demographic war and concentrated his efforts instead on making blacks second-class citizens and Hispanics national pariahs.
What Newt Gingrich did to blacks was almost as odious as his campaign of terror against Hispanics. He is the man who pioneered the "harrassment brigades" (sounds familiar?) which "challenge" and turn away tens of thousands of African-American voters from the polls as a means to neutralize the black vote.
Having given up the hope (if he ever entertained it) that blacks or Hispanics would ever flock to the Republican party, Gingrich invented a policy of "containment" whose object is to disenfranchise them. Cuban-Americans got caught up in his web, because, although a majority are Republicans, it was impossible to exclude them from the punitive sanctions implemented against all Hispanics.
So this is the man that Henry Gómez wants to be the next president of the United States, a man who defines himself, incidentally, as "the most serious, systematic revolutionary of modern times;" or, as I would define him, the no less catastrophic photographic negative of fellow Georgian Jimmy Carter. Who would have guessed it?
From the RCAB Archives, May 31, 2007:
Since He Was 7
"[I]'ve been following presidential politics since I was 7 years old, that's 30 years now, and in order to win the presidency you have to win your party's nomination and, mark my words, Rudy will NEVER be the Republican candidate. First of all he's not a conservative. The Republican base wants someone it can be energized about and [a] liberal NY Republican isn't it. Besides, I think you overestimate Rudy's appeal and ability to beat Hillary. There's only 2 Republicans that I could see as destroying Hillary in a debate and they are Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. I think Thompson brings a lot of the qualities of Gingrich without a lot of the baggage. None of the other candidates in the Republican field is worth a warm bucket of spit."
Posted [on Babalú] by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at May 30, 2007 10:49 PM
It was John Nance Garner, the first of FDR's three vice-presidents and the last American politician born in a log cabin, who first used "warm bucket of spit" to describe the office of vice-president. Some claim that what he actually said was that it wasn't worth a warm bucket of shit, but reporters, in order to publish his remark, were obliged to substitute "shit" for "spit." There is some logic to this assumption, since back then Americans used spitoons not buckets to dispose of excess salivation but did employ buckets, especially in the Deep South whence Garner hailed, as portable outhouses. Whether shit or spit, I don't think, however, that Garner would have had any objection to Henry using that expression to describe a bunch of Republicans.
In fact, one Republican whom Henry exempts from this description Garner would have found much to his liking, fellow southside Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. You see, Garner was the product of his age and place, as apologists for racism once used to say. Never had a more rabid racist ever been one heartbeat away from the presidency since Andrew Johnson. The Democrats chose Garner because he balanced the ticket and was much older than Roosevelt and actually made FDR look young and vigorous in comparison (though Garner was to outlive FDR by nearly 25 years). Still, it shows perhaps a little too much tolerance on FDR's part to have twice chosen as his vice president a man who was not only an enemy of blacks but of all legislation meant to improve the lot of working-class Americans. AFL-CIO head John L. Lewis, speaking to a congressional committee in 1939, called Garner a "labor-baiting, cigar-smoking, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man." [Ah, for the days when public figures actually spoke their minds publicly!]
Garner was an equal opportunity racist and as a congressman had opposed the immigration of "inferior stocks" from Southern Europe, Russia and Asia while "championing" Mexican migrant labor, which he considered a suitable substitute for black slavery with the additional "advantage" that these slaves were "temporary, powerless and easily expelled." Yes, old "Cactus Jack," as Garner was known back home in Texas, is responsible for embracing as a "solution" to high wages and good benefits what is now denounced as a crisis in illegal immigration.
Of course, I am sure that Henry didn't know the source of his quotation, nor, indeed, had ever heard of Garner despite all his precious precociousness at 7 (prodigies usually never fulfill their promise). Yet it is ironic that he appropriates Garner's phrase in a post where he settles for Fred Thompson as his candidate for president only because his real choice Newt Gingrich carries too much "baggage." What he doesn't say is that this baggage consists of a lifetime of nativism and an inveterate hatred for all Hispanics, whom he was the first to demonize nationally as the greatest menace to this Republic since polio. Even old "Cactus Jack" Garner had more sense than that. He knew that they were here to be exploited and approved of their exploitation. Gingrich also knows that it is Americans who exploit the Mexican migrants and not the other way around, but being less honest and more evil than Garner, he makes the beasts of burden his scapegoats. With Gingrich, of course, it is not the fact that they entered this country illegally that offends him. He hates all Hispanics, illegal or legal. That's why he applied all the punitive measures of the "Contract on America" to both alike. So to him it doesn't matter if Hispanics play by the rules or not; they are all a pestilence in his eyes and should be booted from this country.
This is the man that Henry Gómez, who has been following presidential politics since he was 7, desperately wishes he could support for president except for all that "baggage" (which also includes venality and moral turpitude). So poor Henry has to settle for Fred Thompson. We all knew already that Henry considers himself an "American-Cuban," not a "Cuban-American." That is, we all knew already that Cuba comes second with him. What we didn't know is that other Hispanics come last with him.
From the RCAB Archives, May 3, 2007
"The Most Serious, Systematic Revolutionary of Modern Times"
The Babalú Radio Hour sans Val this week gave Henry Gómez twice the responsibility to say foolish and idiotic things, and he did not disappoint. There was fodder there this week for several posts and the difficulty for me was deciding on which of so many gaffes to focus. Of course, I could have highlighted all of them if I wanted to, but Henry is merely the prop that I use to educate others. Some of his assertions are so esoteric and sui generis that I am sure that they never occurred to any sensible person before. To correct Henry just for the sake of correcting Henry is no public service, except to increase the amount of laughter in this world, and perhaps that, too, is a commendable goal.
This one was a close call. Could any other Cuban (or Hispanic) in the country seriously consider voting for Newt Gingrich for president besides Henry, who says that he has narrowed his list to Gingrich and Fred Thompson? A close call indeed. In the end I decided that it was highly unlikely that any other Cuban (even the staunchest Republican) would lend his support to Newt Gingrich unless he knew absolutely nothing about him. This, I hope, is the case with Henry, who apparently doesn't know (or care) that Gingrich was the previous generation's Tom Tancredo. Except that Gingrich was never a joke. He was deadly earnest in his xenophobia and 100% successful in implementing "reforms" aimed at destroying this country's Hispanic population. It is doubtful or, rather, impossible that Tancredo will ever become Speaker of the House, let alone president. Gingrich did and as master of Congress orquestrated the re-introduction of chattel slavery in the U.S. and made Hispanics the bondsmen.
Since Cuban-Americans reflexively remove themselves from any equation involving Hispanics (we are white, don't you know?), it is important to point out that Cuban exiles were not exempted from Newt's 1994 "Contract With America" (more accurately described as the "Contract On America.") In fact, Newt Gingrich is second only to Fidel Castro in the number of deaths of Cubans for which he is directly responsible. Ten years ago, thanks to provisions in Newt's "Contract On America" which denied social security and Medicaid benefits to legal residents, elderly Cuban exiles who were not U.S. citizens were committing suicide in Miami on a daily basis rather than face the prospect of homelessness and an ignonimous death on the streets. Dozens are known to have tried and nationally the figure may be in the hundreds since no one really cares to find out what kills the elderly.
Since the time of Newt Gingrich's "Contract on America," I stopped supporting the Republican Party (but could never bring myself to support the Democrats). As originally presented to the American public, Newt's "Contract" would have barred illegal immigrants from receiving welfare benefits. On the basis of that pledge Republicans gained a majority in Congress for the first time since the Eisenhower administration. It was only after the Republicans had captured Congress that Newt revealed his real xenophobic agenda, which encompassed, of course, not only illegal but legal immigrants.
Legal immigrants, who did things "the right way," obeyed immigration laws, paid taxes and were part of the social contract, had the safety net pulled out from under them. Although they were still required to pay income taxes, social security taxes, Medicaid taxes, unemployment insurance taxes — in sum, all taxes — they were not allowed to participate in, or benefit from, the various social programs to which they contributed, but obliged to work to support those same benefits for Newt's parents and Clinton's.
In other words, the Republicans turned all immigrants, legal or not, into non-persons (not even 3/5ths people). And still this was not enough. Now they want to denaturalize the immigrants' U.S.-born children so that they can prevent them from receiving school lunch, or, indeed, bar them from school altogether. The Republican hatred of Hispanics does not exempt children, but targets children specifically. After all, it is a demographic war.
Gingrich has done his best to contribute to that demographic war (the other kind of war he simply dodges) by asking his cancer-stricken (and barren) wife for a divorce on her deathbed so that he could marry his girlfriend, and then, while excoriating Clinton for his infidelities, engaged in adulteries of his own, which he now admits. He must have decided, at some point, that copulation was not the way to win the demographic war and concentrated his efforts instead on making blacks second-class citizens and Hispanics national pariahs.
What Newt Gingrich did to blacks was almost as odious as his campaign of terror against Hispanics. He is the man who pioneered the "harrassment brigades" (sounds familiar?) which "challenge" and turn away tens of thousands of African-American voters from the polls as a means to neutralize the black vote.
Having given up the hope (if he ever entertained it) that blacks or Hispanics would ever flock to the Republican party, Gingrich invented a policy of "containment" whose object is to disenfranchise them. Cuban-Americans got caught up in his web, because, although a majority are Republicans, it was impossible to exclude them from the punitive sanctions implemented against all Hispanics.
So this is the man that Henry Gómez wants to be the next president of the United States, a man who defines himself, incidentally, as "the most serious, systematic revolutionary of modern times;" or, as I would define him, the no less catastrophic photographic negative of fellow Georgian Jimmy Carter. Who would have guessed it?
Friday, September 28, 2007
Linked, Unlinked and Relinked: RCAB and Uncommon Sense
In the short span of the Review of Cuban-American Blogs we have had a long history with Marc Másferrer's Uncommon Sense. It was the second blog to link to us after Killcastro. It was the first blog to unlink us, 2 weeks later. And, yesterday, it became the first blog to relink to us after unlinking us. All in less than 6 month's time.
We have always acknowledged our gratitude to Marc for those 2 weeks of past linkage and understood the pressure that compelled him to unlink us that first time around. During those 2 weeks, Val & Company and all the Babalunian satellites "discovered" us and got on board (and have never left since). Of course, we can understand their fascination with RCAB. It is, after all, about them. Many of them come here in the hope that I will notice them, even though they know that I, like another Marc, did not come here to praise them. Let me not discourage their hopes: I will get to them by the by. In case anybody has any doubt about it, I am here for the long run (knock on wood).
Everybody carves out his own niche in the Cuban-American blogosphere. I like to see myself as the iconoclast. Marc Másferrer's own niche is as the publicist for Cuban political prisoners. I use "publicist" in its 19th century meaning, which conveyed no trace of commercialism. A publicist then was a sincere and disinterested advocate, such as Charles A. Dana, editor of The (N.Y.) Sun and Marti's friend, who championed the cause of Cuba's independence for 30 years in the columns of his newspaper. In terms of sheer usefulness and commitment, it would be hard to top Marc's Uncommon Sense.
Of course, everybody knows (and he knows) by now that I don't like his blog's name and have on more than one occasion commented here that common sense is better than uncommon sense. I also object to the fact that he keeps repeating "300" as the number of Castro's political prisoners, taking that ridiculously low figure from renowned human rights organizations which, in turn, define "political prisoner" in Fidel Castro's terms. This is very unfortunate, to say the least. Perhaps now that Raúl Castro has in one fell swoop arrested 200 more in one day, the received figure will rise to 500, which is better than 300 but still less than 1 percent of the real total. I suppose that such spurious low figures are cited in the hope that more people will believe them. If you state honestly that they are between 50,000-100,000 political prisoners in Castro's jails, you might not be believed. Being believed is apparently more important than being factual.
I also object to Marc's two-tier ranking of the Cuban-American blogs to which he links (the "A list" and the "B list" blogs). This is not in keeping with his character or the character of his blog. If I did it (and it would perhaps be more expected of me), I should rank them across the entire spectrum of the alphabet (A-Z) and review their rankings often. But I have no time for such games. Besides, I am nothing if not egalitarian in my outlook and I am loathe to create artificial social barriers in any sphere.
There, then, is only a small part of RCAB's history with Uncommon Sense. Before I forget, there is something else that I like about Marc: he is not afraid of me. That is a rare quality among Val & Company.
As I believe that reciprocality is the glue of civilization, I have also added Uncommon Sense to the "Fraternal Links" at the bottom of the page. I hope our association is longer than the first time around.
We have always acknowledged our gratitude to Marc for those 2 weeks of past linkage and understood the pressure that compelled him to unlink us that first time around. During those 2 weeks, Val & Company and all the Babalunian satellites "discovered" us and got on board (and have never left since). Of course, we can understand their fascination with RCAB. It is, after all, about them. Many of them come here in the hope that I will notice them, even though they know that I, like another Marc, did not come here to praise them. Let me not discourage their hopes: I will get to them by the by. In case anybody has any doubt about it, I am here for the long run (knock on wood).
Everybody carves out his own niche in the Cuban-American blogosphere. I like to see myself as the iconoclast. Marc Másferrer's own niche is as the publicist for Cuban political prisoners. I use "publicist" in its 19th century meaning, which conveyed no trace of commercialism. A publicist then was a sincere and disinterested advocate, such as Charles A. Dana, editor of The (N.Y.) Sun and Marti's friend, who championed the cause of Cuba's independence for 30 years in the columns of his newspaper. In terms of sheer usefulness and commitment, it would be hard to top Marc's Uncommon Sense.
Of course, everybody knows (and he knows) by now that I don't like his blog's name and have on more than one occasion commented here that common sense is better than uncommon sense. I also object to the fact that he keeps repeating "300" as the number of Castro's political prisoners, taking that ridiculously low figure from renowned human rights organizations which, in turn, define "political prisoner" in Fidel Castro's terms. This is very unfortunate, to say the least. Perhaps now that Raúl Castro has in one fell swoop arrested 200 more in one day, the received figure will rise to 500, which is better than 300 but still less than 1 percent of the real total. I suppose that such spurious low figures are cited in the hope that more people will believe them. If you state honestly that they are between 50,000-100,000 political prisoners in Castro's jails, you might not be believed. Being believed is apparently more important than being factual.
I also object to Marc's two-tier ranking of the Cuban-American blogs to which he links (the "A list" and the "B list" blogs). This is not in keeping with his character or the character of his blog. If I did it (and it would perhaps be more expected of me), I should rank them across the entire spectrum of the alphabet (A-Z) and review their rankings often. But I have no time for such games. Besides, I am nothing if not egalitarian in my outlook and I am loathe to create artificial social barriers in any sphere.
There, then, is only a small part of RCAB's history with Uncommon Sense. Before I forget, there is something else that I like about Marc: he is not afraid of me. That is a rare quality among Val & Company.
As I believe that reciprocality is the glue of civilization, I have also added Uncommon Sense to the "Fraternal Links" at the bottom of the page. I hope our association is longer than the first time around.
Notable & Quotable: They Also Are Traitors Who Only Stand and Wait
A Thank-You Note... (from Charlie Bravo & Killcastro)
"To all of those who promoted cowardice and silence, to all of those who turned their backs to the little girl that today is being stripped from the only happiness that she has known to be given to the person who wanted her dead, abandoned her with an abusive mother, and to whom the "justice system" is trusting today with her care.
"To all of those who were silent cowards, who closed their eyes before perjury, prejudice, fabrications, lies, conspiracy, and consorting with a tyrant in his death bed, a big thank you in the name of castro. He's sending thank-you notes, all of them poisoned.
"From KillCastro and Charlie Bravo, a big and resounding fuck you, cowards. If you were born Cuban, well, fuck you again, damn traitors."
Posted by Charlie Bravo @ Black Sheep of Exile, Sept. 27, 2007
UPDATED:
Vana said...
Manuel:
I cannot believe our people in Miami have turned their back on Elenita, what has happened to them? they have lost their heart, not to care when a fellow Cuban is turned over to the beast, I never thought I would see that day, as Charlie says Fuck them all!
9/28/2007 12:39 PM
Ziva said...
Tell me Vana, exactly what have you done to further freedom for Elenita? How many letters have you written? Phone calls? Have you put yourself in harms way and been arrested to protest the judge´s bias? Has someone publicly threatened to beat the shit out of you for your advocacy? Have you not eaten for weeks in protest of the pre-determined outcome? Have you gotten fired from your job, you know, the one your family depends upon, so you can spend your days picketing in front of the court house? No? Do you know anyone who has? Are you willing to lose your job and get arrested in order to interfere with an American court of law? Just exactly what have you done to free Cuba? Where´s your blog? How many years have you gone without sleep in order to write about a free Cuba? Inquiring minds want to know Vana, just exactly what have you done to free Cuba?
9/29/2007 3:18 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Vana:
I believe that the sympathies of the Cuban people — with a few isolated and unexpected exceptions — are wholly with the little girl. But we cannot deny that there is a fatalistic streak a mile-wide in our community as a result of the Elián case which has convinced most exiles that the government will impose its will in this case regardless of the courts and the democratic process, and, of course, regardless of which party is in office.
Consider: George Bush has maintained in place the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy longer than Clinton did, and with the Republican candidates fighting among themselves to see which can be the most xenophobic and anti-Hispanic, it is doubtful that Bush will scrap it before he leaves office or that his successor will regardless of party.
The conclusion that most Cuban exiles appear to have arrived at is that it is better to do nothing than to do something. To do something means to bring upon themselves the media's wrath and the visceral hate of a majority of the American people (no, I'm not mincing words here). I think most exiles would say with Charlie Bravo "What the Fuck" if they believed that such an emotional investment, such an expenditure of political capital (?), would yield positive results for this already much-abused little girl. But they don't believe that, and in view of the Elián case there is no reason for them to.
Theirs is actually the logical position. But logic is not always the best guide in life. It is too cold and often detached from the imponderables of the human soul. In sum, logic is too calculating and man too incalculable for the two ever to reside in perfect communion.
In this case, the logical thing and the right thing were not the same. The life of this little girl was worth all the insults, all the infamy, and, yes, it was even worth another defeat. The real defeat is when one abandons principles to expediency; the real defeat is when we can regard even one child as expendable.
Vana, your criticism of the conduct of most exiles in this case is fair.
There are no lost causes; only lost men.
9/29/2007 9:11 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Ziva:
We must each do what lies within our possibilities. There are many people in a far better position than Vana, you or I to effect change in this case, who have chosen to remain silent. Some have even damned the little girl to hell (literally) because they did not want to be cast in a negative light in the media. These include some of your fellow editors at Babalú, as you know.
Vana has always maintained a principled stand in regard to Elenita. This is more than most have done and all that I ever asked Val or Henry to do.
I understand the depth of your heartache because I share it, as I am sure Vana does also. But I understand also that you are not really attacking our good Vana. It is, rather, a case of displacement. Those whom you wish you could attack, those who have disappointed and defrauded you, you cannot attack.
But don't let it worry you: I can and do.
9/29/2007 9:22 AM
http://www.blacksheepofexile.blogspot.com/
"To all of those who promoted cowardice and silence, to all of those who turned their backs to the little girl that today is being stripped from the only happiness that she has known to be given to the person who wanted her dead, abandoned her with an abusive mother, and to whom the "justice system" is trusting today with her care.
"To all of those who were silent cowards, who closed their eyes before perjury, prejudice, fabrications, lies, conspiracy, and consorting with a tyrant in his death bed, a big thank you in the name of castro. He's sending thank-you notes, all of them poisoned.
"From KillCastro and Charlie Bravo, a big and resounding fuck you, cowards. If you were born Cuban, well, fuck you again, damn traitors."
Posted by Charlie Bravo @ Black Sheep of Exile, Sept. 27, 2007
UPDATED:
Vana said...
Manuel:
I cannot believe our people in Miami have turned their back on Elenita, what has happened to them? they have lost their heart, not to care when a fellow Cuban is turned over to the beast, I never thought I would see that day, as Charlie says Fuck them all!
9/28/2007 12:39 PM
Ziva said...
Tell me Vana, exactly what have you done to further freedom for Elenita? How many letters have you written? Phone calls? Have you put yourself in harms way and been arrested to protest the judge´s bias? Has someone publicly threatened to beat the shit out of you for your advocacy? Have you not eaten for weeks in protest of the pre-determined outcome? Have you gotten fired from your job, you know, the one your family depends upon, so you can spend your days picketing in front of the court house? No? Do you know anyone who has? Are you willing to lose your job and get arrested in order to interfere with an American court of law? Just exactly what have you done to free Cuba? Where´s your blog? How many years have you gone without sleep in order to write about a free Cuba? Inquiring minds want to know Vana, just exactly what have you done to free Cuba?
9/29/2007 3:18 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Vana:
I believe that the sympathies of the Cuban people — with a few isolated and unexpected exceptions — are wholly with the little girl. But we cannot deny that there is a fatalistic streak a mile-wide in our community as a result of the Elián case which has convinced most exiles that the government will impose its will in this case regardless of the courts and the democratic process, and, of course, regardless of which party is in office.
Consider: George Bush has maintained in place the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy longer than Clinton did, and with the Republican candidates fighting among themselves to see which can be the most xenophobic and anti-Hispanic, it is doubtful that Bush will scrap it before he leaves office or that his successor will regardless of party.
The conclusion that most Cuban exiles appear to have arrived at is that it is better to do nothing than to do something. To do something means to bring upon themselves the media's wrath and the visceral hate of a majority of the American people (no, I'm not mincing words here). I think most exiles would say with Charlie Bravo "What the Fuck" if they believed that such an emotional investment, such an expenditure of political capital (?), would yield positive results for this already much-abused little girl. But they don't believe that, and in view of the Elián case there is no reason for them to.
Theirs is actually the logical position. But logic is not always the best guide in life. It is too cold and often detached from the imponderables of the human soul. In sum, logic is too calculating and man too incalculable for the two ever to reside in perfect communion.
In this case, the logical thing and the right thing were not the same. The life of this little girl was worth all the insults, all the infamy, and, yes, it was even worth another defeat. The real defeat is when one abandons principles to expediency; the real defeat is when we can regard even one child as expendable.
Vana, your criticism of the conduct of most exiles in this case is fair.
There are no lost causes; only lost men.
9/29/2007 9:11 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Ziva:
We must each do what lies within our possibilities. There are many people in a far better position than Vana, you or I to effect change in this case, who have chosen to remain silent. Some have even damned the little girl to hell (literally) because they did not want to be cast in a negative light in the media. These include some of your fellow editors at Babalú, as you know.
Vana has always maintained a principled stand in regard to Elenita. This is more than most have done and all that I ever asked Val or Henry to do.
I understand the depth of your heartache because I share it, as I am sure Vana does also. But I understand also that you are not really attacking our good Vana. It is, rather, a case of displacement. Those whom you wish you could attack, those who have disappointed and defrauded you, you cannot attack.
But don't let it worry you: I can and do.
9/29/2007 9:22 AM
http://www.blacksheepofexile.blogspot.com/
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Notable & Variable: Well, Well, Henry
Henry in Autumn:
CanesFan,
You assume a lot of things and get a lot of things wrong. You take at face value the idea that this guy wants to take responsibility for this daughter that he fathered with some crazy lady he got into the sack with once. Given the fact that the foster family is one that the Cuban regime would really like to hurt (because the guy makes his living getting Cuban ballplayers to defect) you can't rule out the idea that the regime dug this guy up and shipped him over here with instructions to reclaim the daughter.
Your examination of the "father's rights" doesn't take into account the rights of the little girl. The only stable person she's had her entire life is her half brother, who was adopted by the Cubas family. By giving in to the father's "rights" you are ripping her out of the arms of her closest sane relative. The girl left Cuba when she was 2 years old. She doesn't even know this man who has parental "rights" over her.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez @ Babalú blog on September 27, 2007 03:12 PM
Henry in Summer:
"Here we go again.... Let me first begin by saying i'm a Cuban American. I honestly think this could become another Elian-like scenario all orchestrated by Castro. Are we going to allow Castro to win again as we did with Elian and hurt the Miami Cuban image by playing this game? People let's pick our battles - THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM. Whether we like it or not, the biological father has every right to reclaim his daughter since her mother is unfit to raise her. Let's put our political beliefs and passion on the side right now and think clearly about this issue. This isn't politics. This is a child whose father did sign the consent form to let her leave with the biological mother...however, since the mother cannot raise her appropriately, he has every right to take her back. YES - most likely the Cuban Government is financially supporting him here in the U.S. (that's obvious). Let's take a moment and reflect on the consequences we as a people face if we decide to make this a political battle. Look what happened with Elian and the credibility we lost as a people. Cubans in Miami lets wake up and pick out the right battles... let's attack Castro on real issues that impact Cuba and not play his little game and fall victims to his plow that will eventually end in failure. To the eyes of the world we will be seen as ruthless and immature for not allowing a girl to live with her father. It's his choice to decide what to do... if he is brave enough, which I doubt, he will publicly inform the press he was paid by the government and risk his family back home to uncover the truth... but I doubt he will do that and I don't blame him. Let's stop allowing Castro to win these stupid battles and attack him with more credible reasons such as the fate of the two Cuban boxers who simply because they wanted to defect and were deported to Cuba face prison, family persecution and the loss of their professional athletic careers - just to mention one case. This is already well documented as the coach already mentioned in Brazil that their careers are "dead". There are numerous issues we can certainly use to attack Castro and uncover the real truth and show the world his true colors. This isn't one of them. For those in Miami and elsewhere who look at any Cuban issue as a way to simply bash Cubans and Cuban Americans, I think you have to question yourselves and your personal hatred or jealousy and stop attacking a group of people simply because you cannot stand the fact that the Cuban community is one of the most successful migrant groups in the U.S. History. However, that's not the point here and honestly, your ignorant insults just make me laugh and just show your true colors and the issues you have. Having that sort of hatred won't lead you anywhere and you will just be losers forever. It's attitude people. Back to the issue... Cubans wake up and let's move on... this is not an issue we should stir up and allow the real issues to get clouded over parental rights. The world is watching... let's not make a sequel to Elian."
Posted Anonymously [by Henry Gómez] @ The Miami Herald Forum on August 6, 2007
CanesFan,
You assume a lot of things and get a lot of things wrong. You take at face value the idea that this guy wants to take responsibility for this daughter that he fathered with some crazy lady he got into the sack with once. Given the fact that the foster family is one that the Cuban regime would really like to hurt (because the guy makes his living getting Cuban ballplayers to defect) you can't rule out the idea that the regime dug this guy up and shipped him over here with instructions to reclaim the daughter.
Your examination of the "father's rights" doesn't take into account the rights of the little girl. The only stable person she's had her entire life is her half brother, who was adopted by the Cubas family. By giving in to the father's "rights" you are ripping her out of the arms of her closest sane relative. The girl left Cuba when she was 2 years old. She doesn't even know this man who has parental "rights" over her.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez @ Babalú blog on September 27, 2007 03:12 PM
Henry in Summer:
"Here we go again.... Let me first begin by saying i'm a Cuban American. I honestly think this could become another Elian-like scenario all orchestrated by Castro. Are we going to allow Castro to win again as we did with Elian and hurt the Miami Cuban image by playing this game? People let's pick our battles - THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM. Whether we like it or not, the biological father has every right to reclaim his daughter since her mother is unfit to raise her. Let's put our political beliefs and passion on the side right now and think clearly about this issue. This isn't politics. This is a child whose father did sign the consent form to let her leave with the biological mother...however, since the mother cannot raise her appropriately, he has every right to take her back. YES - most likely the Cuban Government is financially supporting him here in the U.S. (that's obvious). Let's take a moment and reflect on the consequences we as a people face if we decide to make this a political battle. Look what happened with Elian and the credibility we lost as a people. Cubans in Miami lets wake up and pick out the right battles... let's attack Castro on real issues that impact Cuba and not play his little game and fall victims to his plow that will eventually end in failure. To the eyes of the world we will be seen as ruthless and immature for not allowing a girl to live with her father. It's his choice to decide what to do... if he is brave enough, which I doubt, he will publicly inform the press he was paid by the government and risk his family back home to uncover the truth... but I doubt he will do that and I don't blame him. Let's stop allowing Castro to win these stupid battles and attack him with more credible reasons such as the fate of the two Cuban boxers who simply because they wanted to defect and were deported to Cuba face prison, family persecution and the loss of their professional athletic careers - just to mention one case. This is already well documented as the coach already mentioned in Brazil that their careers are "dead". There are numerous issues we can certainly use to attack Castro and uncover the real truth and show the world his true colors. This isn't one of them. For those in Miami and elsewhere who look at any Cuban issue as a way to simply bash Cubans and Cuban Americans, I think you have to question yourselves and your personal hatred or jealousy and stop attacking a group of people simply because you cannot stand the fact that the Cuban community is one of the most successful migrant groups in the U.S. History. However, that's not the point here and honestly, your ignorant insults just make me laugh and just show your true colors and the issues you have. Having that sort of hatred won't lead you anywhere and you will just be losers forever. It's attitude people. Back to the issue... Cubans wake up and let's move on... this is not an issue we should stir up and allow the real issues to get clouded over parental rights. The world is watching... let's not make a sequel to Elian."
Posted Anonymously [by Henry Gómez] @ The Miami Herald Forum on August 6, 2007
Judge Jeri B. Cohen's Decision: We Should All Want "Marginal" Fathers
We have very little to say about Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen's decision on Rafael Izquierdo's fitness as a father. She has been telegraphing her verdict since the first day of the trial and throughout the preliminary hearings. Not once but hundreds of times she admonished the Florida Department of Children and Families for not proving to her entire satisfaction that the birth father abandoned his daughter and was an unfit parent. Yet all the testimony given in her courtroom admitted of no other conclusion. In the end, she could only find that Izquierdo was "marginally" fit but that was good enough to rule in his favor. We should all want marginal fathers, marginal spouses and marginal judges.
The judicial battle to save Elenita's life is not over. In fact, it has hardly begun. At some point it will be taken out of Judge Cohen's courtroom and there might even be a chance that right might prevail.
Here are, I believe, all the posts I have dedicated to Elenita's struggle for freedom (from the newest to the oldest):
Ana Menéndez Psychoanalyzes Cuban Exiles
The Real Parents — Joe and María Cubas
Joe Cubas: Castro's Worst Nightmare (and Henry's)
Ana Menéndez & Robert Molleda: The Hag and the Gelding; Or, Love in the Stable
Notable and Hateful: No Mercy for Children Who Straggle From Castro's Knee
What Creature Do I Despise the Most in the World?
The "Elenitas" Keep Multiplying
Is Oscar Corral In Cabaiguán, Cuba?
The Saga of Babalú's Henry Gómez & Alex of SotP
Judge Jeri B. Cohen Just "Hates It; Hates It; Hates It"
Judge Jeri Beth Cohen Gets Her Man (Off)
The Guajiro Hamlet: Rafael Izquiedo
Elián's Father was "Adopted" Too
El Bitongo
The Last Redoubt of Magical Realism: Judge Jeri Beth Cohen's Courtroom
By Their Scars You Will Know Them: The Ordeal of Elenita and Her Brother
Castro's Lawyers Kurzban & Davis Face Disbarment in Cubas-Izquierdo Custody Battle
Cui Bono: The Unasked Question in Judge Cohen's Courtroom
Elena Pérez: Her Life As a Mother and a Mistress (Or Chasing Cod in Cabaiguan)
Letter to Elena Pérez: Birth Mother of the Cuban Refugee Girl
Judge Jeri B. Cohen: Love Child of Janet Reno and Doris Meissner
The Poor Little Cuban Girl that They Call "Eliana"
What "American-Cuban" Bloggers Really Think About "Eliana"
¡Viva Ziva! The Moral Conscience of Babalu Blog
If you wish to read all the post in sequence, go to:
http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com/search?q=cohen
The judicial battle to save Elenita's life is not over. In fact, it has hardly begun. At some point it will be taken out of Judge Cohen's courtroom and there might even be a chance that right might prevail.
Here are, I believe, all the posts I have dedicated to Elenita's struggle for freedom (from the newest to the oldest):
Ana Menéndez Psychoanalyzes Cuban Exiles
The Real Parents — Joe and María Cubas
Joe Cubas: Castro's Worst Nightmare (and Henry's)
Ana Menéndez & Robert Molleda: The Hag and the Gelding; Or, Love in the Stable
Notable and Hateful: No Mercy for Children Who Straggle From Castro's Knee
What Creature Do I Despise the Most in the World?
The "Elenitas" Keep Multiplying
Is Oscar Corral In Cabaiguán, Cuba?
The Saga of Babalú's Henry Gómez & Alex of SotP
Judge Jeri B. Cohen Just "Hates It; Hates It; Hates It"
Judge Jeri Beth Cohen Gets Her Man (Off)
The Guajiro Hamlet: Rafael Izquiedo
Elián's Father was "Adopted" Too
El Bitongo
The Last Redoubt of Magical Realism: Judge Jeri Beth Cohen's Courtroom
By Their Scars You Will Know Them: The Ordeal of Elenita and Her Brother
Castro's Lawyers Kurzban & Davis Face Disbarment in Cubas-Izquierdo Custody Battle
Cui Bono: The Unasked Question in Judge Cohen's Courtroom
Elena Pérez: Her Life As a Mother and a Mistress (Or Chasing Cod in Cabaiguan)
Letter to Elena Pérez: Birth Mother of the Cuban Refugee Girl
Judge Jeri B. Cohen: Love Child of Janet Reno and Doris Meissner
The Poor Little Cuban Girl that They Call "Eliana"
What "American-Cuban" Bloggers Really Think About "Eliana"
¡Viva Ziva! The Moral Conscience of Babalu Blog
If you wish to read all the post in sequence, go to:
http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com/search?q=cohen
Alfonso Chardy is the New Oscar Corral
I have long suspected that Alfonso Chardy was being groomed as Oscar Corral's heir to the unofficial position of resident Cuban reporter at The Miami Herald, known in earlier times as the "house Cuban." Chardy apprenticed under Corral himself and contributed to the infamous "Martí Moonlighter" story. He has for some time been growing into the position and now has formally assumed its duties.
What are those duties, you ask? Well, obviously, to write the bulk of the stories relating to Cuban-Americans with the authority of a Cuban-American's byline. This gives him both a greater authority and a greater latitude for criticism of the community, and, in the beginning, at least, greater access to it as well. The "criticism," of course, if directed at any other community, would be called bashing. I do not know if his editors directly communicate to him that this is what he should do or if this is an unspoken charge which is part of the bylaws of the brotherhood of sell-outs. Eventually, of course, the cumulative effect of so much bashing will dry up his sources and make him anathema in his own community, or, to put it as simply as possible, nobody will want to talk to him because everybody will know he will be the worse for it. That is exactly what happened to Corral prior to the incident with the prostitute. Corral actually had to be removed from the Cuban-American beat (how appropriate that word!) because his community turned against him; but that, for Oscar, at least, was a good thing; it meant that he could leave the Cuban-American ghetto (which was his objective) and be assigned to national stories having nothing to do with Cuba or Cuban-Americans. The house Cuban had moved on to be the company lackey at large. With his newly-minted credentials, Oscar was ready to move on to new and redder pastures. And then, as fate would have it, Yamilet entered his life and the ace reporter was demoted to cub reporter and assigned to the boondocks of Broward — a cautionary tale if there ever was one for his successor. The lesson, of course, is not about avoiding teenage prostitutes (though that would be smart too); but rather about not betraying your own people, because, in the end, they are all that you have (or don't have).
Chardy's debut as Corral's replacement is entitled "The Thieves Struck in the Middle of the Night," a vacuous headline that hardly describes the peculiar thrust that he gives the story. A better if longer headline would have been: "Cuban Smugglers Responsible for Spike in Boat Thefts (Though There Is No Evidence for This Conclusion)."
The story recounts the attempted theft of "Plan B," a 36-foot fishing boat worth $200,000, which ran aground not far from its mooring in Key Largo. The boat belongs to Rodney Barreto, chairman of the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Committee. This connection seems to impress Chardy, though it is doubtful that it impressed the would-be thief, who certainly did not know the identity of the boat's owner or else he might have thought twice about stealing that particular boat.
Although the person(s) responsible for, in effect, taking Barreto's boat on a joyride of less than 5 miles have not been apprehended that doesn't stop Barreto from conjecturing that it was Cuban smugglers who stole his boat and are behind the recent spike in boat thefts in Miami-Dade.
The evidence for reporting that smugglers (and, more specifically, Cuban smugglers) were involved in the theft of Barreto's boat? "[T]wo drums with fuel, a tarp and a duffel bag with water and potato chips" were found aboard the abandoned boat. Well, that clinches it for sure. It is notoriously well known that smugglers (and especially Cuban smugglers) love potato chips and will often cleanse the salty taste from their mouths with water. As for the oil, the tarp and the duffel bag, these items also identify the culprits as smugglers (and particularly Cuban smugglers) since surely they are never found on any other vessels except those employed in "smuggling" Cubans into the U.S. (Incidentally, a perfectly legal activity under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966. Back then it was known as rescuing fugitives from injustice and entailed no punitive measures either for the rescuer or the rescued).
Besides the water and the potato chips, etc., what other evidence is there that Cuban smugglers are to blame for the 20 percent spike in the number of boat thefts over the last year?
Now is the time for Chardy to prove himself Oscar Corral's organic successor and continuator, and he does not fail to rise to the occasion.
In the same period, Chardy reports, there has been a rise in the number of Cuban "migrants" intercepted by the Coast Guard in the Florida Straits as well as in the number of "migrants" who evaded its cordon sanitaire and landed in U.S. territory, or who entered the U.S. legally through the Mexican border after making land in that country.
The rise in the number of refugees (the word "migrant" is nowhere in the Cuban Adjustment Act, which defines their status) does not proof prima facie that so-called Cuban smugglers are responsible for the spike in boat thefts any more than an increase in the number of men with beards in this country would prove that there is a corresponding increase in support for Islamic terrorists among Americans.
Of course, there is absolutely no real evidence to back the contention that smugglers are to blame for the recent rash in boat thefts. No so-called smuggler of Cuban refugees has ever been interdicted with a stolen boat, though many have had their own boats stolen by the government for engaging in that activity. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. If Chardy learned nothing else from Oscar Corral, he learned that.
He learned something else as well from his mentor: always sound at least one alarmist note in every article about Cubans; leave them (the Anglo xenophobes and their self-hating "American-Cuban" counterparts) with the awful specter of a new "invasion" of Cuban "migrants." This simple expedient will add interest to even the dullest story.
So Chardy tells us that Cuban "migrants" are arriving on U.S. shores at the highest rate since the 1994 balsero crisis. Of course, this is always the case; there is always a small increment every year, yet the total number does not rise about 3,000, which is nowhere near the figure of 37,191 that arrived in the 1994 balsero exodus.
Well, Chardy is on his way. No doubt he has dreams of outstripping Corral as a maligner of his people and may well succeed if anyone of his ilk can truly be said to have been a success. If his predecessor's cautionary tale is not enough to dissuade him from taking this course, let him reflect if life does not hold something better for him than to be a 21st century descendent of Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/251655.html
What are those duties, you ask? Well, obviously, to write the bulk of the stories relating to Cuban-Americans with the authority of a Cuban-American's byline. This gives him both a greater authority and a greater latitude for criticism of the community, and, in the beginning, at least, greater access to it as well. The "criticism," of course, if directed at any other community, would be called bashing. I do not know if his editors directly communicate to him that this is what he should do or if this is an unspoken charge which is part of the bylaws of the brotherhood of sell-outs. Eventually, of course, the cumulative effect of so much bashing will dry up his sources and make him anathema in his own community, or, to put it as simply as possible, nobody will want to talk to him because everybody will know he will be the worse for it. That is exactly what happened to Corral prior to the incident with the prostitute. Corral actually had to be removed from the Cuban-American beat (how appropriate that word!) because his community turned against him; but that, for Oscar, at least, was a good thing; it meant that he could leave the Cuban-American ghetto (which was his objective) and be assigned to national stories having nothing to do with Cuba or Cuban-Americans. The house Cuban had moved on to be the company lackey at large. With his newly-minted credentials, Oscar was ready to move on to new and redder pastures. And then, as fate would have it, Yamilet entered his life and the ace reporter was demoted to cub reporter and assigned to the boondocks of Broward — a cautionary tale if there ever was one for his successor. The lesson, of course, is not about avoiding teenage prostitutes (though that would be smart too); but rather about not betraying your own people, because, in the end, they are all that you have (or don't have).
Chardy's debut as Corral's replacement is entitled "The Thieves Struck in the Middle of the Night," a vacuous headline that hardly describes the peculiar thrust that he gives the story. A better if longer headline would have been: "Cuban Smugglers Responsible for Spike in Boat Thefts (Though There Is No Evidence for This Conclusion)."
The story recounts the attempted theft of "Plan B," a 36-foot fishing boat worth $200,000, which ran aground not far from its mooring in Key Largo. The boat belongs to Rodney Barreto, chairman of the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Committee. This connection seems to impress Chardy, though it is doubtful that it impressed the would-be thief, who certainly did not know the identity of the boat's owner or else he might have thought twice about stealing that particular boat.
Although the person(s) responsible for, in effect, taking Barreto's boat on a joyride of less than 5 miles have not been apprehended that doesn't stop Barreto from conjecturing that it was Cuban smugglers who stole his boat and are behind the recent spike in boat thefts in Miami-Dade.
The evidence for reporting that smugglers (and, more specifically, Cuban smugglers) were involved in the theft of Barreto's boat? "[T]wo drums with fuel, a tarp and a duffel bag with water and potato chips" were found aboard the abandoned boat. Well, that clinches it for sure. It is notoriously well known that smugglers (and especially Cuban smugglers) love potato chips and will often cleanse the salty taste from their mouths with water. As for the oil, the tarp and the duffel bag, these items also identify the culprits as smugglers (and particularly Cuban smugglers) since surely they are never found on any other vessels except those employed in "smuggling" Cubans into the U.S. (Incidentally, a perfectly legal activity under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966. Back then it was known as rescuing fugitives from injustice and entailed no punitive measures either for the rescuer or the rescued).
Besides the water and the potato chips, etc., what other evidence is there that Cuban smugglers are to blame for the 20 percent spike in the number of boat thefts over the last year?
Now is the time for Chardy to prove himself Oscar Corral's organic successor and continuator, and he does not fail to rise to the occasion.
In the same period, Chardy reports, there has been a rise in the number of Cuban "migrants" intercepted by the Coast Guard in the Florida Straits as well as in the number of "migrants" who evaded its cordon sanitaire and landed in U.S. territory, or who entered the U.S. legally through the Mexican border after making land in that country.
The rise in the number of refugees (the word "migrant" is nowhere in the Cuban Adjustment Act, which defines their status) does not proof prima facie that so-called Cuban smugglers are responsible for the spike in boat thefts any more than an increase in the number of men with beards in this country would prove that there is a corresponding increase in support for Islamic terrorists among Americans.
Of course, there is absolutely no real evidence to back the contention that smugglers are to blame for the recent rash in boat thefts. No so-called smuggler of Cuban refugees has ever been interdicted with a stolen boat, though many have had their own boats stolen by the government for engaging in that activity. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. If Chardy learned nothing else from Oscar Corral, he learned that.
He learned something else as well from his mentor: always sound at least one alarmist note in every article about Cubans; leave them (the Anglo xenophobes and their self-hating "American-Cuban" counterparts) with the awful specter of a new "invasion" of Cuban "migrants." This simple expedient will add interest to even the dullest story.
So Chardy tells us that Cuban "migrants" are arriving on U.S. shores at the highest rate since the 1994 balsero crisis. Of course, this is always the case; there is always a small increment every year, yet the total number does not rise about 3,000, which is nowhere near the figure of 37,191 that arrived in the 1994 balsero exodus.
Well, Chardy is on his way. No doubt he has dreams of outstripping Corral as a maligner of his people and may well succeed if anyone of his ilk can truly be said to have been a success. If his predecessor's cautionary tale is not enough to dissuade him from taking this course, let him reflect if life does not hold something better for him than to be a 21st century descendent of Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/251655.html
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Babaloo's Waterloos: The Mark of "Cain"
Babalú has published 6 or 7 posts within a 24-hour period about Cane, the fictional saga of a multinational family masquerading as Cuban sugar barons in Florida. Val Prieto is responsible for most of the posts. It's obvious that Val is a frustrated tv critic (it would be too horrible to think that he is a frustrated actor). In fact, he shows more than a little aptitude as a reviewer and should consider marshalling his talents in that direction. He does much better writing about fictional Cuban characters than real ones. Well, they always say to write about what you know.
While Val does not like Cane (not Cuban enough for his taste), Henry is more than satisfied with its entertainment value. Somehow we knew that the less Cuban Cane was the more Henry would like it, although we are surprised that Henry's idea of "assimilation" is becoming Mexican or Puerto Rican. Well, if it conduces to annexation, Henry can have no objection to it. But let me not suggest that Val is the greater Cuban patriot; for he is as committed to having the Star-Spangled-Banner supplant our estrella solitaria on the flagstaff at Morro Castle. It's just that Val still cares about appearances; he is, as you all know, a very important man whose unfounded rumors the White House values enough to deny. Henry is not as self-important as his senior partner, though he compensates for that trace of deference (which becomes less each passing day) by his unshakable conviction that he is infallible. This is a common conceit among heartless people like Henry which allows them to live more or less at peace with themselves no matter how contemptibly they act (and scapegoating a 4-year-old girl is really the ultima thule of contemptuousness).
The great controversy on the merits of Cane threatens to tear apart the already very disfunctional Babalú family and is itself a real-life imitation of the tv show's storyline (that is, un-life imitates un-art). As I have not seen the show (and will never see it), I cannot write the allegory that my readers expect. They will have to make those connections for themselves if they deign to watch it themselves. For me, Babalú is soap opera enough.
While Val does not like Cane (not Cuban enough for his taste), Henry is more than satisfied with its entertainment value. Somehow we knew that the less Cuban Cane was the more Henry would like it, although we are surprised that Henry's idea of "assimilation" is becoming Mexican or Puerto Rican. Well, if it conduces to annexation, Henry can have no objection to it. But let me not suggest that Val is the greater Cuban patriot; for he is as committed to having the Star-Spangled-Banner supplant our estrella solitaria on the flagstaff at Morro Castle. It's just that Val still cares about appearances; he is, as you all know, a very important man whose unfounded rumors the White House values enough to deny. Henry is not as self-important as his senior partner, though he compensates for that trace of deference (which becomes less each passing day) by his unshakable conviction that he is infallible. This is a common conceit among heartless people like Henry which allows them to live more or less at peace with themselves no matter how contemptibly they act (and scapegoating a 4-year-old girl is really the ultima thule of contemptuousness).
The great controversy on the merits of Cane threatens to tear apart the already very disfunctional Babalú family and is itself a real-life imitation of the tv show's storyline (that is, un-life imitates un-art). As I have not seen the show (and will never see it), I cannot write the allegory that my readers expect. They will have to make those connections for themselves if they deign to watch it themselves. For me, Babalú is soap opera enough.
Guantánamo Naval Base, Playground for Pedophiles
Well, they have to put them somewhere, and the place where the U.S. military sends its pedophiles is Guantánamo Naval Base. Incredibly, this actually does make some sense. Guantánamo is the only U.S. military facility in the world whose personnel is not allowed to mix with the local residents. The gates at the naval base have been locked for 46 years. The Castro regime has mined its environs not just to slow down an American invasion but to restrain its own citizens from seeking refuge there. If you are going to tolerate pedophiles in the armed forces — and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" apparently extends to them as well — then the place to isolate them is where they have no access to children and must limit their predations to 18-19 year-old soldiers or prisoners, not 8-9 year olds. Or so one would suppose.
Of course, children do sometimes manage to find their way to Guantánamo and the pedophiles find their way to them. Under the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot Policy," when Cuban refugeees are picked up by the Coast Guard on the high seas and it is determined that they have legitimate grounds to claim asylum, they are not transported to the U.S. but sequestered at Guantánamo Naval Base, where they are segregated from the alleged terrorists confined there but subjected to the same draconian security measures. These measures until recently included cavity searches of the children and even babies. When this became known last month — in fact, it was the last story that Oscar Corral reported on before his long hiatus — the government sought third-countries that would accept the Cuban refugees at Guantánamo, thereby preempting another scandal to rival that of the Arab military translators.
A story in the news lately confirms that Guantánamo has long been a pedophile's playground for the U.S. military. Kirby Logan Archer, a military police investigator at Guantánamo during the 1990s balsero crisis, was recently plucked from a life boat in the Florida Straits along with a Cuban teenager when the chartered boat on which he hoped to flee to Communist Cuba disappeared along with its 4-man crew. The fugitive Archer, a suspect in a $92,600 theft from an Arkansas Walmart, was apparently attempting to defect to Cuba with the teenager whom he first met when he and his family were confined at Guantánamo more than ten years ago. Archer maintained contact with him since his arrival in the U.S. and Archer's ex-wife claims that as a boy the Cuban teenager had even vacationed in their home in Arkansas. The Archers' marriage ended recently when she came out as a lesbian and Archer as a homosexual.
It has been assumed that Kirby Archer was fleeing to the island because he was wanted in connection with the Arkansas theft. It seems more probable, though, that the theft was committed in order to provide him with the funds to flee to Cuba with his teenage victim. The Cuban regime's open tolerance of sex tourism, and, particularly, the sexual exploitation of children, must have convinced Archer that he would have been welcome there along with his teenage companion, a Cuban national.
Although this is admittedly a unique case in many respects, the catalyst for it is not unique. The U.S. military must end its longstanding policy of using Guantánamo Naval Base as a dumping ground for all kinds of dysfunctional and anti-social elements from its ranks. With the scarcity of recruits in wartime and the cost of training replacements for them, it is unlikely that this will happen any time soon.
Of course, children do sometimes manage to find their way to Guantánamo and the pedophiles find their way to them. Under the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot Policy," when Cuban refugeees are picked up by the Coast Guard on the high seas and it is determined that they have legitimate grounds to claim asylum, they are not transported to the U.S. but sequestered at Guantánamo Naval Base, where they are segregated from the alleged terrorists confined there but subjected to the same draconian security measures. These measures until recently included cavity searches of the children and even babies. When this became known last month — in fact, it was the last story that Oscar Corral reported on before his long hiatus — the government sought third-countries that would accept the Cuban refugees at Guantánamo, thereby preempting another scandal to rival that of the Arab military translators.
A story in the news lately confirms that Guantánamo has long been a pedophile's playground for the U.S. military. Kirby Logan Archer, a military police investigator at Guantánamo during the 1990s balsero crisis, was recently plucked from a life boat in the Florida Straits along with a Cuban teenager when the chartered boat on which he hoped to flee to Communist Cuba disappeared along with its 4-man crew. The fugitive Archer, a suspect in a $92,600 theft from an Arkansas Walmart, was apparently attempting to defect to Cuba with the teenager whom he first met when he and his family were confined at Guantánamo more than ten years ago. Archer maintained contact with him since his arrival in the U.S. and Archer's ex-wife claims that as a boy the Cuban teenager had even vacationed in their home in Arkansas. The Archers' marriage ended recently when she came out as a lesbian and Archer as a homosexual.
It has been assumed that Kirby Archer was fleeing to the island because he was wanted in connection with the Arkansas theft. It seems more probable, though, that the theft was committed in order to provide him with the funds to flee to Cuba with his teenage victim. The Cuban regime's open tolerance of sex tourism, and, particularly, the sexual exploitation of children, must have convinced Archer that he would have been welcome there along with his teenage companion, a Cuban national.
Although this is admittedly a unique case in many respects, the catalyst for it is not unique. The U.S. military must end its longstanding policy of using Guantánamo Naval Base as a dumping ground for all kinds of dysfunctional and anti-social elements from its ranks. With the scarcity of recruits in wartime and the cost of training replacements for them, it is unlikely that this will happen any time soon.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Ana Menéndez Psychoanalyzes Cuban Exiles
Meet Ana Menéndez. You know her already, of course, as The Miami Herald's spokesman for Cuban-Americans who does nothing but speak ill of them, in contrast, for example, to its African-American columnist, whose job it is to champion his community, which often translates into attacking other communities on their behalf when he feels that his own has been shortchanged or victimized. Menéndez is no champion of her people; on the contrary, she exists for the sole purpose of misrepresenting them and embracing all and sundry who oppose them. But this is not news to you. She is what she is, and by now everybody knows what that is.
But you would do Ana Menéndez a great injustice if you thought she was merely a self-hating Cuban who trades on her ethnicity while remaining aloof from "her people" and even contemptuous of them; who discovered at the age of 35, after denying her roots all her life, that being a Cuban by accident and a liberal by choice had its advantages in the world of journalism, where such rara avis are collected and sheltered and even presented to the world as representative of their species when in fact they are only freaks.
There are many faces of Ana (as if one were not enough). There is Ana Menéndez, exponent of moral equivalency between victim and victimized; Ana Menéndez, critic of all things Cuban except tyrants; Ana Menéndez, beleaguered uber-conscience of her people; and, my personal favorite, Ana Menéndez, martyr for truth. All in an amateur capacity, of course.
Today, we will concentrate on Ana Menéndez, amateur psychologist. Since Cuban-Americans are such a disturbed and conflicted bunch (so unlike her, their therapist), it is necessary for the transplanted Valley girl to psychoanalyze them in all her columns, for only in the light of her intuited knowledge (the only knowledge she has of them) can her non-Cuban readers understand the depths of their depravity. The most famous example of this tendency to read the worst into anything they do was her column on the Cuba Nostalgia convention a year ago. Where most people would see a bunch of old folks lovingly fingering ancient postcards and reliving their past through its relics — imbibing, as it were, cubanidad with their coffee — Menéndez saw only the commercialization of patriotism and the cheapening of culture. Such criticism is ridiculous on its face (Menéndez as a champion of Cuban patriotism and culture!) and shows just how disconnected she is from her own roots or any fellow-feeling for her people. She also indulged in psychological mumbo-jumbo to explain this Cuban obsession of looking backward at one's life (exclusive to us, of course) while cheapening that past by fetishisizing its nostalgia (exclusive to us, as well). This particular column even won a prize (actual money, $4000) from some Cuban-bashing group, which should be a powerful incentive to continue doing what she's doing because there is a paying audience for her work in addition to her employer. (I wonder how many other journalists get "bonuses" for their columns from likeminded readers?)
Today I am going to dissect her last column, also written in that psychological vein of hers, entitled "Cuban Girl's Case Is Part of a Larger Story" [The Miami Herald, Sept. 23, 2007]. Quite a keen insight, as usual. Isn't every story a part of a bigger story? But don't let me shoot down her column before she's even started.
Menéndez is puzzled that anyone should give a damn about Elenita, the refugee girl whose custody is being contested in a Florida courtroom by Fidel Castro (using her father as his proxy). "Every day, children are lost, abused and shuffled around. Why then so much attention to the plight of one little girl?" she asks.
Before proceeding to answer the question which everybody already knows the answer to, she takes a detour to castigate the wealthy Cubas for making the state of Florida spend $250,000 on this case rather than just surrendering the girl so she can take her place in Fidel Castro's trophee case. Of course, the Cubas had nothing to do with the Florida Department of Children and Families' decision to challenge the fitness of the birth father or to spend whatever monies it saw fit to make their case. Joe Cubas has probably spent much more than that on his own legal team. But Menéndez can't pass up an opportunity to bash rich[er] right-wing Cubans, even those who are less rich today precisely because they put their principles ahead of money. The inference which Menéndez wants her readers to make is that rich Cubans control Miami and can make the local government do their bidding and even compel it to spend $250,000 on a custody case (which surely no poor Cuban child is worth to Menéndez).
While berating the DCF for "spending about $250,000 on behalf of the wealthy foster parents, Joe and Maria Cubas" [n.b. "on behalf of the wealthy foster parents," not the child) who want to keep her here" [that is, adopt her], Menéndez makes no remonstrance against the Castro regime for spending at least an equal amount of the Cuban people's scarcer resources to repatriate the girl.
"On the other side," she writes, "Ira Kurzban has assembled a high-powered team to make the case for the father, Rafael Izquierdo, who wants to take the girl back to Cuba." How nice of Ira! He "assembled the team," unasked and unbidden. Well, maybe Rafael Izquierdo phoned him from Cuba and retained his services. He never called his own daughter, but the simple guajiro was able to find Ira. No doubt Ira has plastered the island with his business cards; or, maybe, he doesn't have to, since one card is enough, the one kept in the Rolodex of the Ministry of the Interior. Well, but Ira is doing all this "pro bono." Yes, pro his bono.
Having clearly established by innuendo which side in the custody case she favors (the one that supposedly doesn't spend any money) Menéndez resumes her psychological musings:
"Enough therapists have gathered to convene a symposium.
We in newspapers and television have also made a huge deal of an otherwise ordinary case. Why? The obvious answer is Elian. Memories of that debacle are so fresh that court insiders refer to this case as Elian II.
But there is a deeper reason for the frenzy surrounding this little girl: The slender outline of her story is poignant short-hand for the larger story Cubans have been writing for half a century.
A "deeper reason" than "the obvious answer" (Elián)? This "deeper reason" is supposedly to be found "in the larger story that Cubans have been writing for half a century." OK, the "deeper reason" than "the obvious answer" is to be found in "the larger story." Knowing, as we do, that Menéndez has absolutely no knowledge of that "story" (history), we are not surprised when she fills the recesses with her patented psychological mumbo-jumbo:
From the beginning, one of the Revolution's great tragedies has been the thousands of families riven by ideology and separation. It's a trauma that has touched every exile family, regardless of politics.
Any of the therapists in residence in Cohen's courtroom can tell you that early traumas continue to mark us until they're fully addressed. Elian was, in its own way, a giant acting-out, a revisiting of all the resentment toward Fidel.
Eight years on, the case of this little girl seems similar, which explains the attention. But it's also different, which may help soothe the inevitable outcome.
Her great psychological insight: Cubans are traumatized and act like traumatized people. What has "traumatized" them? Being "riven by ideology and separation." Is this a phenomenon without an agent? Whose ideology were they "riven" by? Who caused the separation of thousands of Cuban families? And on a grammatical note, "riven" means separated. So she's saying that Cubans were "separated by separation." Again, who is the separator?
We will not get that answer from her.
When she does mention Fidel Castro, it is as the recipient of our "resentment" towards him. Poor man, so greatly resented for nothing that he did.
And how are traumatized Cuban exiles to address this resentment which they feel towards Fidel for apparently no reason?
You guessed it. By turning their backs on this little girl:
"Everyone may have an opinion about where the child belongs, but this time around, most people seem willing to keep it to themselves.
There have been no demonstrations, no public shouting matches, no prayer vigils. Why? The popular explanation is that exiles learned from the Elián embarrassment."
What was it exactly that Cuban exiles "learned" from the "Elián embarassment?" That they were right. Everything they said would happen to the boy happened to him in Cuba and worse than they could even have imagined. The "lesson" which Menéndez would have Cuban exiles learn is that they should never oppose the objectives of Fidel Castro. This will cure them of any residual trauma and resentment which they may feel towards him.
She seems to be implying (and will say later) that Cuban exiles have gained political maturity since the days of Elián. It is more likely that they have lost their blind faith in American democracy (which may be the one good thing that came out of the "Elián debacle"). And who is responsible for increasing their political maturity? Fidel Castro. He is responsible for the fact that no unseemly public emotions that might offend Menéndez's Anglo neighbors and judges have been seen in this case.
And how did a moribund Fidel accomplish this?
By refusing to involve himself in this case.
Really?
This case exists only because of Fidel Castro. It is his deathbed revenge on his #1 enemy. Not Posada Carriles, who never personally affected Castro's own interests; but Joe Cubas, who stole to freedom many of Fidel's prized slaves, the regime's gladiators who fight for the honor of Caesar and are lucky to escape with their own skins as a reward.
Menéndez also credits Judge Jeri B. Cohen and "to some extent" Joe and María Cubas for "shielding the girl from publicity." You see, the greeat evil here is publicity not propaganda. Who is going to protect this little girl from Castro's propaganda in Cuba? Who protected Elián? No one. Menéndez is not concerned about that. She candidly admits at this point in her article that she wants the girl returned to Cuba for the whole Elián treatment. That doesn't concern her. Publicity concerns her, that is, the free flow of information. The manipulation of information in Cuba, the state's monopoly on all media, does not concern her:
"Joe and Maria Cubas made many missteps. But in one important area, they did the right thing: It must have been tempting to drag the story of the cute little auburn-haired girl before the cameras.
It would have been easy to make an emotional plea directly to a community still easily manipulated through ancient hurts.
In refusing to do so, they have proved their love, for which no one can fault them. They've also helped move this community that much closer to maturity. For which we can all be grateful."
The "first misstep," of course, that Joe and María Cubas made was to challenge Castro. That is always the "first misstep," as far as Menéndez is concerned. As for "dragging the girl" before the cameras, it would obviously have been a worse offense than dragging her back to Cuba. At least she concedes that Cuban exiles are also capable of love. Usually, she credits them only with the capacity to hate (as she did earlier in this article). For her, the wounds and scars which Cubans bear, physical and psychological, are "ancient hurts" which should long ago have been forgotten. Only when Cuban exiles can forget those "ancient hurts," which are as fresh as the uncongealed blood on the faces of dissidents in Cuba, today as in every day for the last 48 years; only when they accept their own victimization and are "grateful" for it (as she is), will Cuban exiles move "closer to political maturity."
Where was Menéndez when the Jews needed her?
But you would do Ana Menéndez a great injustice if you thought she was merely a self-hating Cuban who trades on her ethnicity while remaining aloof from "her people" and even contemptuous of them; who discovered at the age of 35, after denying her roots all her life, that being a Cuban by accident and a liberal by choice had its advantages in the world of journalism, where such rara avis are collected and sheltered and even presented to the world as representative of their species when in fact they are only freaks.
There are many faces of Ana (as if one were not enough). There is Ana Menéndez, exponent of moral equivalency between victim and victimized; Ana Menéndez, critic of all things Cuban except tyrants; Ana Menéndez, beleaguered uber-conscience of her people; and, my personal favorite, Ana Menéndez, martyr for truth. All in an amateur capacity, of course.
Today, we will concentrate on Ana Menéndez, amateur psychologist. Since Cuban-Americans are such a disturbed and conflicted bunch (so unlike her, their therapist), it is necessary for the transplanted Valley girl to psychoanalyze them in all her columns, for only in the light of her intuited knowledge (the only knowledge she has of them) can her non-Cuban readers understand the depths of their depravity. The most famous example of this tendency to read the worst into anything they do was her column on the Cuba Nostalgia convention a year ago. Where most people would see a bunch of old folks lovingly fingering ancient postcards and reliving their past through its relics — imbibing, as it were, cubanidad with their coffee — Menéndez saw only the commercialization of patriotism and the cheapening of culture. Such criticism is ridiculous on its face (Menéndez as a champion of Cuban patriotism and culture!) and shows just how disconnected she is from her own roots or any fellow-feeling for her people. She also indulged in psychological mumbo-jumbo to explain this Cuban obsession of looking backward at one's life (exclusive to us, of course) while cheapening that past by fetishisizing its nostalgia (exclusive to us, as well). This particular column even won a prize (actual money, $4000) from some Cuban-bashing group, which should be a powerful incentive to continue doing what she's doing because there is a paying audience for her work in addition to her employer. (I wonder how many other journalists get "bonuses" for their columns from likeminded readers?)
Today I am going to dissect her last column, also written in that psychological vein of hers, entitled "Cuban Girl's Case Is Part of a Larger Story" [The Miami Herald, Sept. 23, 2007]. Quite a keen insight, as usual. Isn't every story a part of a bigger story? But don't let me shoot down her column before she's even started.
Menéndez is puzzled that anyone should give a damn about Elenita, the refugee girl whose custody is being contested in a Florida courtroom by Fidel Castro (using her father as his proxy). "Every day, children are lost, abused and shuffled around. Why then so much attention to the plight of one little girl?" she asks.
Before proceeding to answer the question which everybody already knows the answer to, she takes a detour to castigate the wealthy Cubas for making the state of Florida spend $250,000 on this case rather than just surrendering the girl so she can take her place in Fidel Castro's trophee case. Of course, the Cubas had nothing to do with the Florida Department of Children and Families' decision to challenge the fitness of the birth father or to spend whatever monies it saw fit to make their case. Joe Cubas has probably spent much more than that on his own legal team. But Menéndez can't pass up an opportunity to bash rich[er] right-wing Cubans, even those who are less rich today precisely because they put their principles ahead of money. The inference which Menéndez wants her readers to make is that rich Cubans control Miami and can make the local government do their bidding and even compel it to spend $250,000 on a custody case (which surely no poor Cuban child is worth to Menéndez).
While berating the DCF for "spending about $250,000 on behalf of the wealthy foster parents, Joe and Maria Cubas" [n.b. "on behalf of the wealthy foster parents," not the child) who want to keep her here" [that is, adopt her], Menéndez makes no remonstrance against the Castro regime for spending at least an equal amount of the Cuban people's scarcer resources to repatriate the girl.
"On the other side," she writes, "Ira Kurzban has assembled a high-powered team to make the case for the father, Rafael Izquierdo, who wants to take the girl back to Cuba." How nice of Ira! He "assembled the team," unasked and unbidden. Well, maybe Rafael Izquierdo phoned him from Cuba and retained his services. He never called his own daughter, but the simple guajiro was able to find Ira. No doubt Ira has plastered the island with his business cards; or, maybe, he doesn't have to, since one card is enough, the one kept in the Rolodex of the Ministry of the Interior. Well, but Ira is doing all this "pro bono." Yes, pro his bono.
Having clearly established by innuendo which side in the custody case she favors (the one that supposedly doesn't spend any money) Menéndez resumes her psychological musings:
"Enough therapists have gathered to convene a symposium.
We in newspapers and television have also made a huge deal of an otherwise ordinary case. Why? The obvious answer is Elian. Memories of that debacle are so fresh that court insiders refer to this case as Elian II.
But there is a deeper reason for the frenzy surrounding this little girl: The slender outline of her story is poignant short-hand for the larger story Cubans have been writing for half a century.
A "deeper reason" than "the obvious answer" (Elián)? This "deeper reason" is supposedly to be found "in the larger story that Cubans have been writing for half a century." OK, the "deeper reason" than "the obvious answer" is to be found in "the larger story." Knowing, as we do, that Menéndez has absolutely no knowledge of that "story" (history), we are not surprised when she fills the recesses with her patented psychological mumbo-jumbo:
From the beginning, one of the Revolution's great tragedies has been the thousands of families riven by ideology and separation. It's a trauma that has touched every exile family, regardless of politics.
Any of the therapists in residence in Cohen's courtroom can tell you that early traumas continue to mark us until they're fully addressed. Elian was, in its own way, a giant acting-out, a revisiting of all the resentment toward Fidel.
Eight years on, the case of this little girl seems similar, which explains the attention. But it's also different, which may help soothe the inevitable outcome.
Her great psychological insight: Cubans are traumatized and act like traumatized people. What has "traumatized" them? Being "riven by ideology and separation." Is this a phenomenon without an agent? Whose ideology were they "riven" by? Who caused the separation of thousands of Cuban families? And on a grammatical note, "riven" means separated. So she's saying that Cubans were "separated by separation." Again, who is the separator?
We will not get that answer from her.
When she does mention Fidel Castro, it is as the recipient of our "resentment" towards him. Poor man, so greatly resented for nothing that he did.
And how are traumatized Cuban exiles to address this resentment which they feel towards Fidel for apparently no reason?
You guessed it. By turning their backs on this little girl:
"Everyone may have an opinion about where the child belongs, but this time around, most people seem willing to keep it to themselves.
There have been no demonstrations, no public shouting matches, no prayer vigils. Why? The popular explanation is that exiles learned from the Elián embarrassment."
What was it exactly that Cuban exiles "learned" from the "Elián embarassment?" That they were right. Everything they said would happen to the boy happened to him in Cuba and worse than they could even have imagined. The "lesson" which Menéndez would have Cuban exiles learn is that they should never oppose the objectives of Fidel Castro. This will cure them of any residual trauma and resentment which they may feel towards him.
She seems to be implying (and will say later) that Cuban exiles have gained political maturity since the days of Elián. It is more likely that they have lost their blind faith in American democracy (which may be the one good thing that came out of the "Elián debacle"). And who is responsible for increasing their political maturity? Fidel Castro. He is responsible for the fact that no unseemly public emotions that might offend Menéndez's Anglo neighbors and judges have been seen in this case.
And how did a moribund Fidel accomplish this?
By refusing to involve himself in this case.
Really?
This case exists only because of Fidel Castro. It is his deathbed revenge on his #1 enemy. Not Posada Carriles, who never personally affected Castro's own interests; but Joe Cubas, who stole to freedom many of Fidel's prized slaves, the regime's gladiators who fight for the honor of Caesar and are lucky to escape with their own skins as a reward.
Menéndez also credits Judge Jeri B. Cohen and "to some extent" Joe and María Cubas for "shielding the girl from publicity." You see, the greeat evil here is publicity not propaganda. Who is going to protect this little girl from Castro's propaganda in Cuba? Who protected Elián? No one. Menéndez is not concerned about that. She candidly admits at this point in her article that she wants the girl returned to Cuba for the whole Elián treatment. That doesn't concern her. Publicity concerns her, that is, the free flow of information. The manipulation of information in Cuba, the state's monopoly on all media, does not concern her:
"Joe and Maria Cubas made many missteps. But in one important area, they did the right thing: It must have been tempting to drag the story of the cute little auburn-haired girl before the cameras.
It would have been easy to make an emotional plea directly to a community still easily manipulated through ancient hurts.
In refusing to do so, they have proved their love, for which no one can fault them. They've also helped move this community that much closer to maturity. For which we can all be grateful."
The "first misstep," of course, that Joe and María Cubas made was to challenge Castro. That is always the "first misstep," as far as Menéndez is concerned. As for "dragging the girl" before the cameras, it would obviously have been a worse offense than dragging her back to Cuba. At least she concedes that Cuban exiles are also capable of love. Usually, she credits them only with the capacity to hate (as she did earlier in this article). For her, the wounds and scars which Cubans bear, physical and psychological, are "ancient hurts" which should long ago have been forgotten. Only when Cuban exiles can forget those "ancient hurts," which are as fresh as the uncongealed blood on the faces of dissidents in Cuba, today as in every day for the last 48 years; only when they accept their own victimization and are "grateful" for it (as she is), will Cuban exiles move "closer to political maturity."
Where was Menéndez when the Jews needed her?
"Che's" Children Are Fasting for Ramadan Like Good Muslims
"Che" Guevara's middle-aged children, Camilo and Aleida, are visiting Iran at the invitation of the Culture Alliance Center, described in news reports as a "non-governmental organization" as if it were remotely possible for any group not connected to the government of this Islamic theocracy to declare a "culture alliance" with infidels (no pun intended). The children of the inveterate enemy of religion — all religions, including, of course, Islam — assured their hosts that their father would have supported the Iranian Revolution, which is true insofar as the methods of that Revolution are concerned. Iranian students at Tehran's Amir Kabir University assured them in turn of their admiration for and commitment to the ideals of "Che" Guevara, the practice of which, in any form, would lead to death by stoning in their country, not just because Communism is atheistic, but because it is a competing theocracy and a Western one at that.
The Guevaras trip coincided with the Muslim observance of Ramadan, during which the faithful fast in the daytime hours. The internationalist Guevaras are also fasting while in Iran, which I suppose makes sense, since they could hardly eat at a luncheon in their honor when their hosts don't. Of course, for any other Cubans but the privileged Guevara siblings, Ramadan might actually be a welcome reprieve from the hunger and starvation to which they are accustumed. Muslims voluntarily fast during daylight hours in the holy month of Ramadan (but eat before sunset and after sundown). Ordinary Cubans, of course, fast involuntarily at all hours and all year long.
The Guevaras trip coincided with the Muslim observance of Ramadan, during which the faithful fast in the daytime hours. The internationalist Guevaras are also fasting while in Iran, which I suppose makes sense, since they could hardly eat at a luncheon in their honor when their hosts don't. Of course, for any other Cubans but the privileged Guevara siblings, Ramadan might actually be a welcome reprieve from the hunger and starvation to which they are accustumed. Muslims voluntarily fast during daylight hours in the holy month of Ramadan (but eat before sunset and after sundown). Ordinary Cubans, of course, fast involuntarily at all hours and all year long.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Notable & Quotable: Marc is Sorry, Too
Oops, let's not do it again
By Marc Másferrer
"I admit, I jumped the gun last month, when I repeated rumors of Castro's death... As a journalist, and as a blogger who has tried to instill my site with journalistic quality and integrity, I should have been more careful, more skeptical, in the absence of a proof of death.
The lesson to be learned is simple: Be careful with rumors. If you are going to report them, make clear that you don't have anything more to go on. Don't stake your credibility on something you don't know, can't know, for sure. Don't let your wishful thinking, the pain you and your family have felt for decades, get the better of you. I know many of you detest the "mainstream media," but the standards of the MSM — verify all your information, report only what you know, what you can verify — might serve all of us well in these turbulent times. Obviously, people are paying attention to us, so we all need to act accordingly." — Uncommon Sense, September 22, 2007.
At least in his mea culpa, Marc Másferrer didn't ask anyone to "Kiss [his] ass," as did the leader of the Babalunians. Marc hints at the fact that he is the only professional MSM journalist among the Cuban-American bloggers. He should have known better. In fact, he should have provided guidance to those like Val who don't have clue about how to handle news. It is true that no MSM newspaper has ever gone to press announcing Fidel Castro's death. Whether this is because they take their cues from the regime or are careful to avoid committing a "Mark Twain" (i.e. reporting prematurely a celebrity's death), or because Castro's death is a non-event for them — his obituaries having long ago been written and updated periodically — the fact remains that whatever malfeasance the MSM have committed in their reportage about and from Cuba (and they are guilty of every other kind), they have at least avoided this particular Castroite trap that has ensnared so many Cuban-American bloggers.
It is ironic that Cuban bloggers who have been trying for years to get the truth out about Castro have lost much of their credibility by spreading (or initiating) these rumors, while the mainstream media, which haven't told the truth about Cuba in more than 5 decades, should have escaped unscathed from this debacle. Of course, the media have one advantage which Cuban bloggers don't when it comes to reporting on Castro's alleged death. They can report the news as a "rumor" originating among Cuban exiles in Miami. If wrong, they lose nothing. If right, they were right, too.
Extreme caution — perhaps even exaggerated caution — is now likely to prevail among most Cuban bloggers in regards to Fidel's death (with the obvious exception). And maybe this is what Havana wanted all along: to discredit them in order to control them. If so, the plan has succeeded, with an assist from the self-admitted "dupes" at Babalú.
Albert Quiroga said...
We should ponder these wise words, stated in another time and place, when once a mere man, albeit a unique one, exerted undue psychological influence on his foes:
"There exists a real danger that our friend Rommel is becoming a ... bogeyman to our troops... He is by no means a superman, although he is undoubtedly very energetic and able... I wish you to dispel by all possible means the idea that Rommel represents something more than an ordinary German general... we must refer to 'the Germans' or 'the Axis powers' or 'the enemy' and not keep harping on Rommel."
Gen. Claude Auchinleck, Commanding British 8th Army, summer 1942
In fairness, comparing the Desert Fox to the vermin of Biran is like comparing Saladin to Usama Bin-Laden... still, hope this will somewhat illustrate the point.
Perhaps the best approach all of us can take, instead of allowing the castroites to play cat-and-mouse games, in the process mocking the Cuban diaspora, is to stop paying so much attention to this dying entity, instead thinking of and acting towards him AS IF HE WERE ALREADY DEAD. Because, for all practical purposes, he is. This sociopathic megalomaniac has thrived on being the center of attention during his entire un-natural life, getting his kicks at seeing both friend and foe fuss, rant, rave, fawn, and go through the gamut of human emotions as he mesmerizes them in cobra-like fashion. Even as death approaches, he is getting the last laugh, and perhaps this is giving him a psychological boost and keeping him alive longer.
We need to, psychologically, convert him into an irrelevancy and dismiss same from our thoughts. This is not easy - it certainly is not for me. Still, let him be dead in our minds and perhaps his body will soon follow. Our energies should be concentrated in helping Cubans achieve both physical and spiritual freedom. Let us keep this in mind at all times, and dismiss from our thoughts that dying, empty shell of a NOTHING.
9/24/2007 4:12 PM
By Marc Másferrer
"I admit, I jumped the gun last month, when I repeated rumors of Castro's death... As a journalist, and as a blogger who has tried to instill my site with journalistic quality and integrity, I should have been more careful, more skeptical, in the absence of a proof of death.
The lesson to be learned is simple: Be careful with rumors. If you are going to report them, make clear that you don't have anything more to go on. Don't stake your credibility on something you don't know, can't know, for sure. Don't let your wishful thinking, the pain you and your family have felt for decades, get the better of you. I know many of you detest the "mainstream media," but the standards of the MSM — verify all your information, report only what you know, what you can verify — might serve all of us well in these turbulent times. Obviously, people are paying attention to us, so we all need to act accordingly." — Uncommon Sense, September 22, 2007.
At least in his mea culpa, Marc Másferrer didn't ask anyone to "Kiss [his] ass," as did the leader of the Babalunians. Marc hints at the fact that he is the only professional MSM journalist among the Cuban-American bloggers. He should have known better. In fact, he should have provided guidance to those like Val who don't have clue about how to handle news. It is true that no MSM newspaper has ever gone to press announcing Fidel Castro's death. Whether this is because they take their cues from the regime or are careful to avoid committing a "Mark Twain" (i.e. reporting prematurely a celebrity's death), or because Castro's death is a non-event for them — his obituaries having long ago been written and updated periodically — the fact remains that whatever malfeasance the MSM have committed in their reportage about and from Cuba (and they are guilty of every other kind), they have at least avoided this particular Castroite trap that has ensnared so many Cuban-American bloggers.
It is ironic that Cuban bloggers who have been trying for years to get the truth out about Castro have lost much of their credibility by spreading (or initiating) these rumors, while the mainstream media, which haven't told the truth about Cuba in more than 5 decades, should have escaped unscathed from this debacle. Of course, the media have one advantage which Cuban bloggers don't when it comes to reporting on Castro's alleged death. They can report the news as a "rumor" originating among Cuban exiles in Miami. If wrong, they lose nothing. If right, they were right, too.
Extreme caution — perhaps even exaggerated caution — is now likely to prevail among most Cuban bloggers in regards to Fidel's death (with the obvious exception). And maybe this is what Havana wanted all along: to discredit them in order to control them. If so, the plan has succeeded, with an assist from the self-admitted "dupes" at Babalú.
Albert Quiroga said...
We should ponder these wise words, stated in another time and place, when once a mere man, albeit a unique one, exerted undue psychological influence on his foes:
"There exists a real danger that our friend Rommel is becoming a ... bogeyman to our troops... He is by no means a superman, although he is undoubtedly very energetic and able... I wish you to dispel by all possible means the idea that Rommel represents something more than an ordinary German general... we must refer to 'the Germans' or 'the Axis powers' or 'the enemy' and not keep harping on Rommel."
Gen. Claude Auchinleck, Commanding British 8th Army, summer 1942
In fairness, comparing the Desert Fox to the vermin of Biran is like comparing Saladin to Usama Bin-Laden... still, hope this will somewhat illustrate the point.
Perhaps the best approach all of us can take, instead of allowing the castroites to play cat-and-mouse games, in the process mocking the Cuban diaspora, is to stop paying so much attention to this dying entity, instead thinking of and acting towards him AS IF HE WERE ALREADY DEAD. Because, for all practical purposes, he is. This sociopathic megalomaniac has thrived on being the center of attention during his entire un-natural life, getting his kicks at seeing both friend and foe fuss, rant, rave, fawn, and go through the gamut of human emotions as he mesmerizes them in cobra-like fashion. Even as death approaches, he is getting the last laugh, and perhaps this is giving him a psychological boost and keeping him alive longer.
We need to, psychologically, convert him into an irrelevancy and dismiss same from our thoughts. This is not easy - it certainly is not for me. Still, let him be dead in our minds and perhaps his body will soon follow. Our energies should be concentrated in helping Cubans achieve both physical and spiritual freedom. Let us keep this in mind at all times, and dismiss from our thoughts that dying, empty shell of a NOTHING.
9/24/2007 4:12 PM
What Creature Do I Despise the Most in the World?
What creature do I despise the most in the world?
I don't even have to think about it.
Certainly not Val & Company whose ignorance of Cuban history and suppositions based upon that ignorance inspires pity in me, though not enough to excuse or ignore their foibles committed at the expense of our country.
Not even Castro's acolytes in Cuba, whom I do hate but not as much as I hate his acolytes here.
Who are Castro's acolytes here?
Not the idiotic kid who wears a "Che" T-shirt or the bigger idiot who thinks that he is defending Cuba by defending Fidel.
No.
The Castro acolytes that I despise most are the scions of aristocratic Cuban families who supported the Revolution because they enjoyed the thrill of placing bombs in public places, in theaters, night clubs and schools, with absolute immunity from prosecution because daddy had the connections to make sure that the law didn't touch them in Batista's Cuba.
Many of these revolutionary aristocrats maintained their privileges in Castro's Cuba, but it was not enough for them. The decaying world around them depressed them, though it was the world they themselves had created. In the end, they left Cuba and rejoined their bank accounts abroad.
In the U.S. many of them shed their revolutionary garb and became outspoken enemies of the regime and pillars of the Cuban-American community. Others did not. These last were decidedly in the minority. While enjoying all the benefits of capitalism here, they continued to applaud all the predations of Communism in Cuba. And they bequeathed to their children, born or raised in this country, their bogus revolutionary ideals.
I feel no more sympathy for the progeny than I do for their denatured parents. They were not raised in a vacuum in the U.S. All around them was the negation of their parents' lies, but they chose to believe the lies and perpetuate their treason.
It is such a creature who placed her ritzy $2 million condo, in a building called "The Atlantis," on Bricknell Avenue, at the disposition of Rafael Izquierdo and his family (or, more correctly, Cuban State Security) during their extended stay in the U.S. for the expressed purpose of returning a free Cuban child to the very slave society that the red doyenne and her parents had fled and fled early.
The creature's name is Elena Freyre. She owns an art gallery in Miami.
More about her later.
h/t Cari
I don't even have to think about it.
Certainly not Val & Company whose ignorance of Cuban history and suppositions based upon that ignorance inspires pity in me, though not enough to excuse or ignore their foibles committed at the expense of our country.
Not even Castro's acolytes in Cuba, whom I do hate but not as much as I hate his acolytes here.
Who are Castro's acolytes here?
Not the idiotic kid who wears a "Che" T-shirt or the bigger idiot who thinks that he is defending Cuba by defending Fidel.
No.
The Castro acolytes that I despise most are the scions of aristocratic Cuban families who supported the Revolution because they enjoyed the thrill of placing bombs in public places, in theaters, night clubs and schools, with absolute immunity from prosecution because daddy had the connections to make sure that the law didn't touch them in Batista's Cuba.
Many of these revolutionary aristocrats maintained their privileges in Castro's Cuba, but it was not enough for them. The decaying world around them depressed them, though it was the world they themselves had created. In the end, they left Cuba and rejoined their bank accounts abroad.
In the U.S. many of them shed their revolutionary garb and became outspoken enemies of the regime and pillars of the Cuban-American community. Others did not. These last were decidedly in the minority. While enjoying all the benefits of capitalism here, they continued to applaud all the predations of Communism in Cuba. And they bequeathed to their children, born or raised in this country, their bogus revolutionary ideals.
I feel no more sympathy for the progeny than I do for their denatured parents. They were not raised in a vacuum in the U.S. All around them was the negation of their parents' lies, but they chose to believe the lies and perpetuate their treason.
It is such a creature who placed her ritzy $2 million condo, in a building called "The Atlantis," on Bricknell Avenue, at the disposition of Rafael Izquierdo and his family (or, more correctly, Cuban State Security) during their extended stay in the U.S. for the expressed purpose of returning a free Cuban child to the very slave society that the red doyenne and her parents had fled and fled early.
The creature's name is Elena Freyre. She owns an art gallery in Miami.
More about her later.
h/t Cari
Ana Menéndez & Robert Molleda: The Hag and the Gelding; Or, Love in the Stable
"Why do we care if a little girl returns to Cuba or not?
The question is not meant to be provocative, or rhetorical. It's something I've been thinking about since the case now before Judge Jeri Beth Cohen became public.
Every year, thousands of children fall into the foster care system, a bureaucracy that doesn't so much manufacture heartbreak as it does institutionalize it.
Every day, children are lost, abused and shuffled around. Why then so much attention to the plight of one little girl?" — Ana Menéndez, column, The Miami Herald, September 23, 2007
"I've arrived at the conclusion that if the girl's father really wants to take her back to Cuba, go right ahead. Please. Leave us alone already. I'll be shocked if Judge Cohen rules for the girl to stay. That may sound insensitive, but let's face it, one girl's return to Cuba isn't going to change anything regarding Cuba. Neither would her staying here accomplish much in the larger picture." — Robert Molleda, Babalú editor @ his satellite blog, 26th Parallel, Sept. 20, 2007
The question is not meant to be provocative, or rhetorical. It's something I've been thinking about since the case now before Judge Jeri Beth Cohen became public.
Every year, thousands of children fall into the foster care system, a bureaucracy that doesn't so much manufacture heartbreak as it does institutionalize it.
Every day, children are lost, abused and shuffled around. Why then so much attention to the plight of one little girl?" — Ana Menéndez, column, The Miami Herald, September 23, 2007
"I've arrived at the conclusion that if the girl's father really wants to take her back to Cuba, go right ahead. Please. Leave us alone already. I'll be shocked if Judge Cohen rules for the girl to stay. That may sound insensitive, but let's face it, one girl's return to Cuba isn't going to change anything regarding Cuba. Neither would her staying here accomplish much in the larger picture." — Robert Molleda, Babalú editor @ his satellite blog, 26th Parallel, Sept. 20, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
"We Love You, Val, Even If You Are Completely Unreliable"
The biggest Babalunians have been defending and comforting Val Prieto in his hour of trial, assuring him time and time again that they would rather be wrong with him than right without him.
And what do we call this?
A personality cult.
Some personality.
Some cult.
And what do we call this?
A personality cult.
Some personality.
Some cult.
Notable and Inspirational: What Eduardo Chibás Has to Teach Val Prieto
The biggest favor I ever did for Val Prieto was to introduce him to Professor Antonio de la Cova. If he follows Dr. de la Cova's sage advice, Val may yet hope to extricate himself from this disgrace of his own making. Never having had Chibás' brains or popular appeal, Val can never hope to aspire to his glory but may yet save himself from the consequences of his folly:
Val,
In 1951, "incredibly trustworthy sources" told Eduardo Chibás in Havana that they would give him evidence that Minister of Education Aureliano Sánchez Arango had bought property in Guatemala with funds stolen from his ministry. The impulsive Chibás made the accusation on his radio program before receiving the evidence. He then held up his briefcase to reporters and falsely assured that the documents were in his briefcase and that he would release them at the appropriate moment. Weeks went by and Chibás and his briefcase became popular choteo. In consequence, Chibás purged himself with Milk of Magnesia before shooting himself in the colon at the end of his radio program. He was on his way to full recovery nine days later, when his physician prescribed decoagulants for developing blood clots. In consequence, he internally bled to death.
Such is Cuban politics. There are always people who claim to have the "inside scoop" but it is just a figment of their imagination to make others believe that they are important. I trusted one of those people when I was younger and paid a high price for it.
Don't let what happened discourage you. Bounce back.
Posted by: delacova @ Babalú on September 22, 2007
12:08 PM
Professor de la Cova's advice would probably have done Val more good if he knew who Eduardo Chibás was.
Val,
In 1951, "incredibly trustworthy sources" told Eduardo Chibás in Havana that they would give him evidence that Minister of Education Aureliano Sánchez Arango had bought property in Guatemala with funds stolen from his ministry. The impulsive Chibás made the accusation on his radio program before receiving the evidence. He then held up his briefcase to reporters and falsely assured that the documents were in his briefcase and that he would release them at the appropriate moment. Weeks went by and Chibás and his briefcase became popular choteo. In consequence, Chibás purged himself with Milk of Magnesia before shooting himself in the colon at the end of his radio program. He was on his way to full recovery nine days later, when his physician prescribed decoagulants for developing blood clots. In consequence, he internally bled to death.
Such is Cuban politics. There are always people who claim to have the "inside scoop" but it is just a figment of their imagination to make others believe that they are important. I trusted one of those people when I was younger and paid a high price for it.
Don't let what happened discourage you. Bounce back.
Posted by: delacova @ Babalú on September 22, 2007
12:08 PM
Professor de la Cova's advice would probably have done Val more good if he knew who Eduardo Chibás was.
Notable and Delusional: Henry Claims Val Never Said "Fidel Is Dead"
"I'm pretty sure that if you read Val's posts and comments on the subject that you'll see that he never said fidel was dead. He reported things he had heard from a variety of sources and stated it as such. He has said that fidel was, in his opinion, dead. The problem here is that we have to rely on the word of an opaque and dishonest regime that is not beyond manipulation and misinformation."
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez @ Babalú on September 22, 2007 09:28 AM
The "problem" is also dupes who are not beyond being manipulated and misinformed. Don't forget that, Henry.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez @ Babalú on September 22, 2007 09:28 AM
The "problem" is also dupes who are not beyond being manipulated and misinformed. Don't forget that, Henry.
Babaloo's Waterloos: Val Admits that Fidel Is Not Dead, Claims to Have Been "Duped Again"
It takes a dupe to be duped and a world-class dupe to be "duped again."
Here is Val's mea culpa, or, rather, his "it's my sources' culpa," before he deletes or re-writes it:
Kiss my ass
By Val Prieto
Babalú, September 22, 2007
Even though I've yet to see the latest video, I'm told fidel castro is still alive, contrary to the many assurances I received from some pretty good sources. Duped once again.
Así es la vida.
I think I mentioned it in the fidel is dead posts, but there was always the possibility of him still being alive and we being manipulated, once again, just like we have been for so many years.
I do apologize for my zeal, but being wrong comes with the package. I trusted incredibly trustworthy sources and I would have been dishonest with you all if I had not stated my personal opinions on the subject. To those that are glad he's alive, all I can say is kiss my fucking ass.
Here is Val's mea culpa, or, rather, his "it's my sources' culpa," before he deletes or re-writes it:
Kiss my ass
By Val Prieto
Babalú, September 22, 2007
Even though I've yet to see the latest video, I'm told fidel castro is still alive, contrary to the many assurances I received from some pretty good sources. Duped once again.
Así es la vida.
I think I mentioned it in the fidel is dead posts, but there was always the possibility of him still being alive and we being manipulated, once again, just like we have been for so many years.
I do apologize for my zeal, but being wrong comes with the package. I trusted incredibly trustworthy sources and I would have been dishonest with you all if I had not stated my personal opinions on the subject. To those that are glad he's alive, all I can say is kiss my fucking ass.
Mamey Banned From Babalú After Refusing Teabagging Request from Henry
Hey, little kids, how about doing something meaningful to help our brothers and sisters in Cuba instead of all this silly speculation. How do they say it in Cuban? Stop eating shit. Nothing personal, just a right on Cuban expression.
Posted by: mamey at September 21, 2007 11:31 PM
Hey mamey,
How about you suck on my balls for a little while.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at September 21, 2007 11:34 PM
Several months ago we exposed mamey as fantomas. Now fantomas (as mamey) has been banned from Babalú. His comment in this instance is no joke, however. Babalú needs to acknowledge and regret its central part in assisting the Castro regime to spread false rumors of Fidel's death intended to discredit the Cuban-American community.
Posted by: mamey at September 21, 2007 11:31 PM
Hey mamey,
How about you suck on my balls for a little while.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at September 21, 2007 11:34 PM
Several months ago we exposed mamey as fantomas. Now fantomas (as mamey) has been banned from Babalú. His comment in this instance is no joke, however. Babalú needs to acknowledge and regret its central part in assisting the Castro regime to spread false rumors of Fidel's death intended to discredit the Cuban-American community.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Notable and Hateful: No Mercy for Children Who Straggle From Castro's Knee
"I've arrived at the conclusion that if the girl's father really wants to take her back to Cuba, go right ahead. Please. Leave us alone already. I'll be shocked if Judge Cohen rules for the girl to stay. That may sound insensitive, but let's face it, one girl's return to Cuba isn't going to change anything regarding Cuba. Neither would her staying here accomplish much in the larger picture." — Robert Molleda, Babalú editor @ his satellite blog, 26th Parallel, Sept. 20, 2007
If ever we have occasion to mention his execrable name again — and we do not think that very likely — we will be sure to call him "Robert the Pragmatist." Or, perhaps, "Molleda the Aztec" because of his devotion to child sacrifice. He is Babalú's evil face, without dissimulation. Such a one would have been useful to the regime. I suppose we should be grateful that he is on "our side."
If ever we have occasion to mention his execrable name again — and we do not think that very likely — we will be sure to call him "Robert the Pragmatist." Or, perhaps, "Molleda the Aztec" because of his devotion to child sacrifice. He is Babalú's evil face, without dissimulation. Such a one would have been useful to the regime. I suppose we should be grateful that he is on "our side."
Babaloo's Waterloos: Friday's Scheduled "Fidel is Dead" Announcement Preempted by New Video
Ain't that a bummer.
On Monday of this week, Val Prieto intimated that another "Fidel is Dead" post was in the works. He even revealed, for the first time, the methodology he uses to determine Castro's death, which entails counting the number of "Fidel is Dead" Google searches which bring visitors to his blog; and if these appear to increase during the week, the cock crows on Friday (or, rather, the horse dies). But not this Friday. Castro preempted the announcement this week and even had a laugh at Val and the other gossipmongers' expense when his obsequious interviewer, Randy Alonso, pointed out that Miami is rife with rumors of his death and that exiles "would fall from their chairs" when they saw the new video. Indeed, Val has not been able to get up from the floor to comment on Fidel's video. Of course, this is nothing unusual. Val is usually laid out on the floor on Fridays by his own admission.
On Monday of this week, Val Prieto intimated that another "Fidel is Dead" post was in the works. He even revealed, for the first time, the methodology he uses to determine Castro's death, which entails counting the number of "Fidel is Dead" Google searches which bring visitors to his blog; and if these appear to increase during the week, the cock crows on Friday (or, rather, the horse dies). But not this Friday. Castro preempted the announcement this week and even had a laugh at Val and the other gossipmongers' expense when his obsequious interviewer, Randy Alonso, pointed out that Miami is rife with rumors of his death and that exiles "would fall from their chairs" when they saw the new video. Indeed, Val has not been able to get up from the floor to comment on Fidel's video. Of course, this is nothing unusual. Val is usually laid out on the floor on Fridays by his own admission.
Notable and Hateful: No [Cuban] Child Left Behind
"Start treating Cuban parents as parents with their full rights." — Alex of Stuck on the Palmetto, in a heartfelt plea not to Castro, but the Florida Department of Children & Families.
If the Florida Department of Children & Families had returned Elenita to her father (after waiting 7 months for him to decide that he wanted her) and had offered, for good measure, to pay her fare back to Cuba, Alex of SotP would proclaim that the rights of Cuban parents had been vindicated in this country and that we were at last first-class citizens.
All we need, apparently, to secure this co-equal status is to sacrifice some of our children every few years to Castro.
If the Florida Department of Children & Families had returned Elenita to her father (after waiting 7 months for him to decide that he wanted her) and had offered, for good measure, to pay her fare back to Cuba, Alex of SotP would proclaim that the rights of Cuban parents had been vindicated in this country and that we were at last first-class citizens.
All we need, apparently, to secure this co-equal status is to sacrifice some of our children every few years to Castro.
The "Elenitas" Keep Multiplying
Since Cuban women have the world's highest suicide rate, it must naturally follow that they have the highest rate of mental illness as well. Another of the Revolution's real "achievements" as yet unreported by the MSM. In light of those statistics it should surprise no one that more "Elenitas" are waiting to have their cases adjudicated in Florida courts. The most similar of three cases involves another 5-year old girl with a mother in a psychiatric hospital here and an alcoholic father in Cuba. The girl is currently under the care of the mother's cousins in Miami, an even more striking parallel to the Elián case.
One of the Castro regime's attorneys defending Izquierdo, Steven Weinger, attempted to alert reporters to the existence of the other cases by mentioning these in open court, earning a sharp rebuke from Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen, the second she has merited in as many weeks. The first was for verbally harrassing an opposing lawyer with details of his private life. No doubt about it, there is no depth of wretchedness or illegality to which the Kurzban-Davis team will not sink; no dirty trick is beyond them; no underhanded ruse; no ethical violation. Already accused by their own witnesses of suborning perjury and obstruction of justice, the rest is simply the topping on the cake. It is doubtful, however, whether anything will be done about their gross professional misconduct. Judge Cohen has refused to sanction them or even to refer their cases to the bar association for disciplinary action.
The reason that Weinger was so anxious that the other cases be publicized was to create the impression that there was nothing special about this particular case. That it was, in fact, just another run-of-the-mill custody case with nothing to distinguish it from the rest but the fact that the principals were Cubans.
I frankly don't know why Weinger even bothered. Judge Cohen's decision to "leave politics out of the case" has in fact meant that those distinctions were never raised in her courtroom. The central fact of the case was never mentioned even once in the deliberations: the fact that this entire custody case is a personal vendetta undertaken by the Castro regime against Joe Cubas, its Number #1 enemy among Cuban exiles. Cubas has snatched dozens of Cuba's prized athletes from Castro's clutches and delivered them to freedom in America. Now it's Castro's chance to "get even" by stealing from Cubas his son's sister, whom he wishes to adopt as well. Rafael Izquierdo abandoned his daughter from the moment of birth, no, even before she was born, since the three-time bigamist asked the mother, Elena Pérez, to abort the baby. He's not the one who wants his daughter back for love's sake or even duty's sake. He never wanted any part of his daughter before she became his meal ticket. It's the regime that wants her so it can consummate its revenge on Joe Cubas.
There is nothing but politics to this case. To refuse to acknowledge that fact, to banish that fact from the courtroom, to erect that fact into some kind of bogeyman, is to subvert justice itself and become a tool of the enemies of the Rule of Law. It is, in fact, to transform an American courtroom into a Cuban one.
[Do not neglect to read the article that follows for more insights on this case, which is expected to be decided today].
One of the Castro regime's attorneys defending Izquierdo, Steven Weinger, attempted to alert reporters to the existence of the other cases by mentioning these in open court, earning a sharp rebuke from Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen, the second she has merited in as many weeks. The first was for verbally harrassing an opposing lawyer with details of his private life. No doubt about it, there is no depth of wretchedness or illegality to which the Kurzban-Davis team will not sink; no dirty trick is beyond them; no underhanded ruse; no ethical violation. Already accused by their own witnesses of suborning perjury and obstruction of justice, the rest is simply the topping on the cake. It is doubtful, however, whether anything will be done about their gross professional misconduct. Judge Cohen has refused to sanction them or even to refer their cases to the bar association for disciplinary action.
The reason that Weinger was so anxious that the other cases be publicized was to create the impression that there was nothing special about this particular case. That it was, in fact, just another run-of-the-mill custody case with nothing to distinguish it from the rest but the fact that the principals were Cubans.
I frankly don't know why Weinger even bothered. Judge Cohen's decision to "leave politics out of the case" has in fact meant that those distinctions were never raised in her courtroom. The central fact of the case was never mentioned even once in the deliberations: the fact that this entire custody case is a personal vendetta undertaken by the Castro regime against Joe Cubas, its Number #1 enemy among Cuban exiles. Cubas has snatched dozens of Cuba's prized athletes from Castro's clutches and delivered them to freedom in America. Now it's Castro's chance to "get even" by stealing from Cubas his son's sister, whom he wishes to adopt as well. Rafael Izquierdo abandoned his daughter from the moment of birth, no, even before she was born, since the three-time bigamist asked the mother, Elena Pérez, to abort the baby. He's not the one who wants his daughter back for love's sake or even duty's sake. He never wanted any part of his daughter before she became his meal ticket. It's the regime that wants her so it can consummate its revenge on Joe Cubas.
There is nothing but politics to this case. To refuse to acknowledge that fact, to banish that fact from the courtroom, to erect that fact into some kind of bogeyman, is to subvert justice itself and become a tool of the enemies of the Rule of Law. It is, in fact, to transform an American courtroom into a Cuban one.
[Do not neglect to read the article that follows for more insights on this case, which is expected to be decided today].
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Judge Jeri B. Cohen Just "Hates It; Hates It; Hates It"
With every passing day, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen becomes more impatient with her duties and more partisan in her conduct. We need hardly say to which side she is partial. She has made no secret of it since even before the formal trial got underway. Her constant refrain has been that the state will never be able to prove that Rafael Izquierdo is an unfit parent because, in effect, the state of Florida has set that threshhold so high that there really is no such thing as an "unfit parent" anymore nor can anything that a parent do short of dropping his/her child down a garbage chute constitute "abandonment." She has berated the Department of Children and Families for even presuming to believe that they could prove their case for neglect or abandonment.
What could be more conclusive proof of abandonment than signing away your parental rights so that your mentally-ill ex-girlfriend can take your daughter to a foreign country, where she has no family and knows no one, and then severing all communications with your child, even after her mother had attempted suicide, refusing even to ask for a humanitarian visa to go see her, until compelled to re-assert your parental rights by a tyrannical regime for its own purposes?
Even in the face of what is unquestionably abandonment, continuous and unapologetic, Judge Cohen refused to accept it as abandonment, not even relying on her own judgment, as she confessed, but on her apprehension that an appellate court would overrule her if she found that there was a case for abandonment because "appellate judges have construed the law so leniently that the most uninvolved and uncaring parent can get his or her children back." In short, she refuses to rule on principle and concedes everything to precedent.
Yes, a Florida circuit court gave O.J. Simpson custody of his kids after he murdered their mother (as proved civilly). Is that really the threshhold? Not even murdering your children's mother makes you an unfit parent? Isn't this the ultimate form of abandonment — murdering the one fit parent and sueing to have custody granted to a murderer (yourself)? If this is so, should it be so? If this is the "precedent," isn't it in desperate need of revision?
In a case as complicated as this one has proved to be Judge Cohen even took the DCF to task for not allowing Izquierdo to testify by phone from Cuba at the hearing, as she allows most litigants in custody cases to do. What makes Rafael Izquierdo any different from a father in Alabama? she asked. And if that wasn't bad enough, she added: "You would have handled it differently if the parent lived in Switzerland." The simple answer is that the Rule of Law is observed in Alabama (and Switzerland) and not in Cuba. No one in the government of Alabama (or Switzerland) would be telling the litigant what his answers should be to the questions asked of him. In Cuba, of course, Izquierdo's entire testimony would be scripted. In fact, there would be no guarantee that Izquierdo himself would be the one answering the questions from Cuba. In person, he made a very bad advocate for his own cause; no doubt they would have found a better one in Cuba.
But Judge Cohen is not receptive to that line of argument either. She brands any attempt to highlight the differences between a democratic and totalitarian system as "politics" and she wants none of that in her courtroom. The politics of the Castro regime — or, rather, the absence of civil society and hence politics in Cuba — does not concern her. As a good liberal she refuses to make "value judgments" and embraces the moral equivalence of those who believe that morality is universal and uniform, which is the same as to say there is no morality, because universal and uniform it has never been.
"The U.S. is reluctant to repatriate children to a communist country. Let's not mince words," Cohen recently asserted. No, she's not "mincing" her words at all. What the U.S. is supposedly reluctant to do, she shows absolutely no scrupples about doing herself. It is odd that those who want freedom for this girl (which necessarily means no repatriation to Cuba) must "mince" their words in Judge Cohen's courtroom, while those who advocate dumping the child down Castro's well need make no excuses for favoring this course.
Cohen even berated herself in open court for her "error" in consenting to the DCF request to require Izquierdo to testify in her courtroom rather than by phone from Havana. Apparently, she wanted to make her verdict based on the fewest possible facts. Izquierdo's perjurous testimony has complicated her life by actually complicating the case. The simple farmer from Cabaiguán turned out to be a highly questionable character. She would have preferred that he had remained the simple farmer. It's easier to handle stock characters than actual facts especially when these don't correspond to your preconceived notions of "justice" in this case.
It is doubtful whether even Solomon bitched as much as this woman. Even the snippets of her comments reported in The Herald would seem to leave no doubt of her extreme distaste for this case. Her real feelings may be otherwise. She seems to take great pleasure in her courtroom histrionics and comports herself like Judge Judy on a bad day every day. In a characteristic outburst Wednesday she complained: "I hate this stuff. Hate it. Hate it. Hate it." I would be more inclined to believe that she "Loves it. Loves it. Loves it." The publicity anyway and its renumerative possibilities.
The verdict, in this phase of the trial, which considers Izquierdo's competency as a parent, will come tomorrow (Friday).
What could be more conclusive proof of abandonment than signing away your parental rights so that your mentally-ill ex-girlfriend can take your daughter to a foreign country, where she has no family and knows no one, and then severing all communications with your child, even after her mother had attempted suicide, refusing even to ask for a humanitarian visa to go see her, until compelled to re-assert your parental rights by a tyrannical regime for its own purposes?
Even in the face of what is unquestionably abandonment, continuous and unapologetic, Judge Cohen refused to accept it as abandonment, not even relying on her own judgment, as she confessed, but on her apprehension that an appellate court would overrule her if she found that there was a case for abandonment because "appellate judges have construed the law so leniently that the most uninvolved and uncaring parent can get his or her children back." In short, she refuses to rule on principle and concedes everything to precedent.
Yes, a Florida circuit court gave O.J. Simpson custody of his kids after he murdered their mother (as proved civilly). Is that really the threshhold? Not even murdering your children's mother makes you an unfit parent? Isn't this the ultimate form of abandonment — murdering the one fit parent and sueing to have custody granted to a murderer (yourself)? If this is so, should it be so? If this is the "precedent," isn't it in desperate need of revision?
In a case as complicated as this one has proved to be Judge Cohen even took the DCF to task for not allowing Izquierdo to testify by phone from Cuba at the hearing, as she allows most litigants in custody cases to do. What makes Rafael Izquierdo any different from a father in Alabama? she asked. And if that wasn't bad enough, she added: "You would have handled it differently if the parent lived in Switzerland." The simple answer is that the Rule of Law is observed in Alabama (and Switzerland) and not in Cuba. No one in the government of Alabama (or Switzerland) would be telling the litigant what his answers should be to the questions asked of him. In Cuba, of course, Izquierdo's entire testimony would be scripted. In fact, there would be no guarantee that Izquierdo himself would be the one answering the questions from Cuba. In person, he made a very bad advocate for his own cause; no doubt they would have found a better one in Cuba.
But Judge Cohen is not receptive to that line of argument either. She brands any attempt to highlight the differences between a democratic and totalitarian system as "politics" and she wants none of that in her courtroom. The politics of the Castro regime — or, rather, the absence of civil society and hence politics in Cuba — does not concern her. As a good liberal she refuses to make "value judgments" and embraces the moral equivalence of those who believe that morality is universal and uniform, which is the same as to say there is no morality, because universal and uniform it has never been.
"The U.S. is reluctant to repatriate children to a communist country. Let's not mince words," Cohen recently asserted. No, she's not "mincing" her words at all. What the U.S. is supposedly reluctant to do, she shows absolutely no scrupples about doing herself. It is odd that those who want freedom for this girl (which necessarily means no repatriation to Cuba) must "mince" their words in Judge Cohen's courtroom, while those who advocate dumping the child down Castro's well need make no excuses for favoring this course.
Cohen even berated herself in open court for her "error" in consenting to the DCF request to require Izquierdo to testify in her courtroom rather than by phone from Havana. Apparently, she wanted to make her verdict based on the fewest possible facts. Izquierdo's perjurous testimony has complicated her life by actually complicating the case. The simple farmer from Cabaiguán turned out to be a highly questionable character. She would have preferred that he had remained the simple farmer. It's easier to handle stock characters than actual facts especially when these don't correspond to your preconceived notions of "justice" in this case.
It is doubtful whether even Solomon bitched as much as this woman. Even the snippets of her comments reported in The Herald would seem to leave no doubt of her extreme distaste for this case. Her real feelings may be otherwise. She seems to take great pleasure in her courtroom histrionics and comports herself like Judge Judy on a bad day every day. In a characteristic outburst Wednesday she complained: "I hate this stuff. Hate it. Hate it. Hate it." I would be more inclined to believe that she "Loves it. Loves it. Loves it." The publicity anyway and its renumerative possibilities.
The verdict, in this phase of the trial, which considers Izquierdo's competency as a parent, will come tomorrow (Friday).
The Re-Conquest of Florida
An exchange with an anonymous run-of-the-mill bigot at "Klotz" As In Blood:
anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
fuck the cubans and their goddam museum. fuck you too. cubans ruined miami and theyre working on fucking up the rest of florida, too.
Manuel A. Tellechea Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Hopefully Cuban exiles will be able to settle the rest of Florida and complete the heroic work of civilization begun by our ancestors in 1565, when settlers from Cuba founded the first permanent colony in what is now the United States, at St. Augustine, FL.
So, yes, Cubans are the original settlers, the FFF (First Families of Florida) and the FFUS (First Families of the United States).
When Cuba is free, Florida will once again become, for all intents and purposes, a colony of Cuba. If nothing else, these last 48 years of tyranny and forced residence in the U.S. have helped Cubans recover their erstwhile political and economic domination of Florida.
This testament to dignity could be called reverse annexation. All the Babalunians and most of their satellites, as well as Alex at Stuck on the Palmetto, are in favor of the annexation of Cuba by the United States. In other words, they think it's OK to negate our entire history; unbury and profane the bones of our forebears; betray and destroy the essence of our country MORE COMPLETELY THAN EVEN CASTRO HAS DONE. That is annexation, the conventional kind; the treasonous kind which Martí and Maceo deplored and which Val & Company support. My version of annexation will not destroy the U.S. A small country like ours cannot overwhelm their big country. A democratic Cuba will be no threat to it. Our benign stewartship of Florida will not threaten it. In fact, I can see no reason that it would be less welcome when Cuba is free than it was when Cuba was not.
An interesting discussion has ensued at:
http://www.steveklotz.com/blog/?p=879
anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
fuck the cubans and their goddam museum. fuck you too. cubans ruined miami and theyre working on fucking up the rest of florida, too.
Manuel A. Tellechea Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Hopefully Cuban exiles will be able to settle the rest of Florida and complete the heroic work of civilization begun by our ancestors in 1565, when settlers from Cuba founded the first permanent colony in what is now the United States, at St. Augustine, FL.
So, yes, Cubans are the original settlers, the FFF (First Families of Florida) and the FFUS (First Families of the United States).
When Cuba is free, Florida will once again become, for all intents and purposes, a colony of Cuba. If nothing else, these last 48 years of tyranny and forced residence in the U.S. have helped Cubans recover their erstwhile political and economic domination of Florida.
This testament to dignity could be called reverse annexation. All the Babalunians and most of their satellites, as well as Alex at Stuck on the Palmetto, are in favor of the annexation of Cuba by the United States. In other words, they think it's OK to negate our entire history; unbury and profane the bones of our forebears; betray and destroy the essence of our country MORE COMPLETELY THAN EVEN CASTRO HAS DONE. That is annexation, the conventional kind; the treasonous kind which Martí and Maceo deplored and which Val & Company support. My version of annexation will not destroy the U.S. A small country like ours cannot overwhelm their big country. A democratic Cuba will be no threat to it. Our benign stewartship of Florida will not threaten it. In fact, I can see no reason that it would be less welcome when Cuba is free than it was when Cuba was not.
An interesting discussion has ensued at:
http://www.steveklotz.com/blog/?p=879
Is Fantomas on the Grassy Knoll?
"Hay mucha gente mala que al saber que hay distinguidos comensales en cierto restaurante de Miami pudieran hacer de las suyas... Si fuera yo cogería una mesa bien lejos de las ventanas
por si acaso..."
"There are many bad people out there who on learning that distinguished guests are lunching at a certain Miami restaurant might try to pull off one of their stunts... If it were me I would choose a table that was very far removed from the windows...
Just in case..."
Abajofidel (aka fantomas) at Babalú on Sept. 18, 2007
There are many ways to interpret this comment, or warning. It could be interpreted as a friend's solicitude. It could also be regarded as a threat, whether coming from friend or foe. The only thing that we can be sure of is that fantomas was contemplating yesterday the possibility of Val's death today. That in itself is a bit unsettling. We want our friends to love us, or at least like us (alive). Fantomas, who was obviously fascinated with the ending of the Sopranos, is predicting a similar fate for Val. I hope that Val didn't set off for that restaurant without at least tapping on wood. A few candles wouldn't hurt either. Or a bottle of Florida Water. The best precaution would be to stay home. Adulation is not worth immolation.
por si acaso..."
"There are many bad people out there who on learning that distinguished guests are lunching at a certain Miami restaurant might try to pull off one of their stunts... If it were me I would choose a table that was very far removed from the windows...
Just in case..."
Abajofidel (aka fantomas) at Babalú on Sept. 18, 2007
There are many ways to interpret this comment, or warning. It could be interpreted as a friend's solicitude. It could also be regarded as a threat, whether coming from friend or foe. The only thing that we can be sure of is that fantomas was contemplating yesterday the possibility of Val's death today. That in itself is a bit unsettling. We want our friends to love us, or at least like us (alive). Fantomas, who was obviously fascinated with the ending of the Sopranos, is predicting a similar fate for Val. I hope that Val didn't set off for that restaurant without at least tapping on wood. A few candles wouldn't hurt either. Or a bottle of Florida Water. The best precaution would be to stay home. Adulation is not worth immolation.
Tostones pa' los tostados
"You can buy us lunch if you want; we're definitely not going to buy you lunch." — Val Prieto, The Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour, Sept. 19, 2007
The last time Val Prieto heard the words "We're doing lunch," they came from the mouth of his telephone buddy Emilio Estefan, back in the days when Val staked his reputation on the word of the Estefans. He knows now what their word is worth. The only thing Val got to eat on the Estefans' dime (besides you know what) was crow, unaccompanied by Emilio or Gloria. Oh, yes, he got something else, but not from the Estefans — the Review of Cuban-American Blogs, the gift that keeps on giving.
Now it is Val who has extended the "We're doing lunch" invitation to his minions. He must be beset by another of his bouts of insecurity because he's "invited" (in a Dutch way) the Babalunian faithful to gather at a local eatery at lunch time to pay tribute to him (in the Ottoman fashion). For sure my ears will be ringing today, since to Val's eternal chagrin the RCAB is the one subject that everybody always brings up in conversation with him nowadays. My shadow will float like a benediction over the gathered sycophants, admonishing them that reason and honor are paths that are always open to those who would take them. Val promises to have "really bad hangover," which means that his devotees will see him at his best. I hope their idol will not disappoint them, but idols usually do.
Henry, the gentleman-in-waiting at Babalú, has not signalled whether he will attend; perhaps he is planning a grand entrance carrying the roasted pig (no, not Val); or else his tastes are more in conformity with his faux Belén education. It is possible, though, that another Belén alumni, down on his luck these days, may be eating there while he cruises the prospects outside.
I may send an observer to the proceedings, as I did when the BUCLers protested outside Versailles Restaurant. I was the first to report here that Val was not there, and that a surprise character from another blog, lately at war with Babalú, had been the one who tipped Henry to the presence of The Police guitarist at the restaurant. I have many eyes and ears among the Babalunian fifth-columnists.
Enjoy your meal and don't even think of passing the tab to Val. He'll be comfortably and conveniently passed out under the table.
The last time Val Prieto heard the words "We're doing lunch," they came from the mouth of his telephone buddy Emilio Estefan, back in the days when Val staked his reputation on the word of the Estefans. He knows now what their word is worth. The only thing Val got to eat on the Estefans' dime (besides you know what) was crow, unaccompanied by Emilio or Gloria. Oh, yes, he got something else, but not from the Estefans — the Review of Cuban-American Blogs, the gift that keeps on giving.
Now it is Val who has extended the "We're doing lunch" invitation to his minions. He must be beset by another of his bouts of insecurity because he's "invited" (in a Dutch way) the Babalunian faithful to gather at a local eatery at lunch time to pay tribute to him (in the Ottoman fashion). For sure my ears will be ringing today, since to Val's eternal chagrin the RCAB is the one subject that everybody always brings up in conversation with him nowadays. My shadow will float like a benediction over the gathered sycophants, admonishing them that reason and honor are paths that are always open to those who would take them. Val promises to have "really bad hangover," which means that his devotees will see him at his best. I hope their idol will not disappoint them, but idols usually do.
Henry, the gentleman-in-waiting at Babalú, has not signalled whether he will attend; perhaps he is planning a grand entrance carrying the roasted pig (no, not Val); or else his tastes are more in conformity with his faux Belén education. It is possible, though, that another Belén alumni, down on his luck these days, may be eating there while he cruises the prospects outside.
I may send an observer to the proceedings, as I did when the BUCLers protested outside Versailles Restaurant. I was the first to report here that Val was not there, and that a surprise character from another blog, lately at war with Babalú, had been the one who tipped Henry to the presence of The Police guitarist at the restaurant. I have many eyes and ears among the Babalunian fifth-columnists.
Enjoy your meal and don't even think of passing the tab to Val. He'll be comfortably and conveniently passed out under the table.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Babalú: The Blog of Repetitions
We've already noted today that Babalú is repeating for the 100th time its hypothetical about ending the embargo unilaterally, right now, right here. (That's the Babalunian equivalent of playing with fire).
We thought that one repetition per day would be quite enough for Babalú. Wrong.
Val Prieto just posted Cleon Skousen's "45 Goals of Communism" for the second time this year, crediting seejanemom via Fausta. Val seems to forget that he himself posted Skousen's "Goals" from the Congressional Record (1963) on March 21, 2007. This was just one week before I was booted from Babalú for criticizing the Estefans. At that time I added the following other goals which international Communism realized since Skousen defined its goals 44 years ago:
46. Give aid and comfort to Marxist revolutionaries and betray your allies fighting against them.
47. Fight wars by proxy against Communism and betray the freedom fighters.
48. Become the guarantor of Communism in small client-states of the Soviet Union.
49. Allow those small Soviet client-states to revolutionize at will your client-states.
50. Determine the justice of granting asylum to refugees from Communism by whether their foot is dry or wet.
Posted by: Manuel A. Tellechea @ Babalu on March 21, 2007 08:18 AM
We thought that one repetition per day would be quite enough for Babalú. Wrong.
Val Prieto just posted Cleon Skousen's "45 Goals of Communism" for the second time this year, crediting seejanemom via Fausta. Val seems to forget that he himself posted Skousen's "Goals" from the Congressional Record (1963) on March 21, 2007. This was just one week before I was booted from Babalú for criticizing the Estefans. At that time I added the following other goals which international Communism realized since Skousen defined its goals 44 years ago:
46. Give aid and comfort to Marxist revolutionaries and betray your allies fighting against them.
47. Fight wars by proxy against Communism and betray the freedom fighters.
48. Become the guarantor of Communism in small client-states of the Soviet Union.
49. Allow those small Soviet client-states to revolutionize at will your client-states.
50. Determine the justice of granting asylum to refugees from Communism by whether their foot is dry or wet.
Posted by: Manuel A. Tellechea @ Babalu on March 21, 2007 08:18 AM
Conclusion:
Either Babalú is running out of steam with all these repetitions, or Val's brain has finally evaporated.
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/004875.html
No "Common Criminals" in Castro's Jails
There are no "common criminals" in Fidel Castro's jails. No prisoner who has ever stood before a Castro "judge" has ever received a fair trial whatever his alleged offense. Even those who "confessed" must be presumed to have done so under duress. All Cuban "courts" are star-chambres and anterooms to the torture chambers.
All "judicial" acts committed by this outlaw de facto regime over the last 48 years are unconstitutional, from the witch trials at the beginning of the Revolution to the latest sentence handed down by a Castro "tribunal."
Everyone in a Cuban jail is a political prisoner.
No need to parse that, though there are many who fall into Castro's trap and actually define political prisoners according to his rules.
All "judicial" acts committed by this outlaw de facto regime over the last 48 years are unconstitutional, from the witch trials at the beginning of the Revolution to the latest sentence handed down by a Castro "tribunal."
Everyone in a Cuban jail is a political prisoner.
No need to parse that, though there are many who fall into Castro's trap and actually define political prisoners according to his rules.
The Same Old Tired Hypothetical
Well, Val is at it again. He's posed his favorite hypothetical question for the 100th time: "The US Government suddenly announces, right now, that it has lifted all sanctions and the embargo against the Cuban government. What happens next?"
What happens next is the same old fruitless discussion.
It might be noted that Val was not always so hypothetical-friendly as he is now.
In a discussion on the embargo two years ago (August 2005), Val demanded of a commenter: "Please inform us how changing the current US policy towards Cuba will, IN FACT and not some idealistic HYPOTHETICAL, foster a change within the island of Cuba."
What happens next is the same old fruitless discussion.
It might be noted that Val was not always so hypothetical-friendly as he is now.
In a discussion on the embargo two years ago (August 2005), Val demanded of a commenter: "Please inform us how changing the current US policy towards Cuba will, IN FACT and not some idealistic HYPOTHETICAL, foster a change within the island of Cuba."
And next year, will Val love or hate hypotheticals?
Val's opinions are as variable as the weather. Since I don't have a satellite up in space, it is useless to try to predict them. It's hard enough to keep track of them.
Cuba's Political Prisoners: Forgetfulness Is Never Acceptable
"I am hesitant to advocate for the release of one political prisoner over the other[s]. They all deserve to [be] free yesterday, and if one gets more attention than [do] the others, the risk is [that] the others will be forgotten." — Marc Másferrer @ Babalú, Sept. 18.
Forget about the ellipses.
Consider the thought that underlies the quoted statement.
Imagine if a doctor said that it pained him to cure only one cancer patient because that meant that the others will be forgotten. Suppose if a lawyer said that he was sorry to focus his attention on the case of one innocent man when there were so many other innocent men accused or convicted of crimes whose cases might be overshadowed by the attention given to his client. Assume a priest saying that he was grieved to have to concentrate on saving one soul at a time when there are so many unsaved souls in the world that might not be baptized because he tended to the spiritual needs of just one.
Why should paying attention to one particular Cuban political prisoners cause the rest to be forgotten? Wouldn't it have the exact opposite effect? Wouldn't putting the spotlight on one prisoner focus interest on the rest? Even if it didn't (for the sake of argument), wouldn't it focus attention on the system that oppresses the one prisoner, thereby benefitting all political prisoners?
Really I would have expected any of Babalu's editors except Marc Másferrer to make such a statement, and if anybody else had made that statement I would have suspected that it was an indirect criticism aimed at Marc.
No other Cuban blogger has dedicated more of his time and energy to highlighting the cases of individual political prisoner than has Marc Másferrer. As these profiles increase over time, the cumulative effect is a devastating indictment of the regime.
One would think that Marc, at least, realized this. Apparently not.
Or perhaps he meant to say something else and somehow thought and words did not adhere right. Let me, then, forcibly detach them, and see if I can't make them fit better.
Human rights organizations presently put the number of Cuban political prisoners at between 250-350. If you added an additional zero, or two or better still three, you would be closer to actual number of political prisoners in Castro's jails. The definition of a "political crime" used by human rights organization to "adopt" individual prisoners is simply too narrow and unrealistic. It does not take into consideration the myriads of so-called "crimes" in Cuba's penal code which would not come under that rubric in any other country's. For example, "economic sabotage," treated as "theft" in Cuba, can simply mean buying a steak on the black market. That particular "crime" can get you 10 years in a Cuban prison. A citizen who tries to leave or enter the country without the regime's permission, or even to move from one province to another, or from one town to the next, or from one house to another across the street, is deemed a criminal in Cuba but no one else on earth. Aren't persons guilty of such "crimes" also political prisoners? Even the imprisoned black marketeer, who challenges the regime's economic monopoly, isn't he also a political prisoner? If independent journalists or librarians are political prisoners, why not anybody else who works independently of the regime and is penalized for it? There are no doubt independent plumbers, independent cable installers and independent construction workers who are rotting in jail besides the independent journalists and librarians. Men who are not intellectuals, who wield other weapons than paper and pen, should also be classified as politicval prisoners. Yet they are not recognized as political prisoners and have no advocates publicizing their plight in the free world. Worst of all, they are completely invisible unlike those who receive the "seal of approval" of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, etc.
The point that I think — that I hope — Marc was trying to make is that he regrets that he must focus his attention on (relatively) well-known cases such as Normando Hernández's and is obliged to ignore the forgotten political prisoners, unnamed and unchampioned. And, what's worse, unknown.
Forget about the ellipses.
Consider the thought that underlies the quoted statement.
Imagine if a doctor said that it pained him to cure only one cancer patient because that meant that the others will be forgotten. Suppose if a lawyer said that he was sorry to focus his attention on the case of one innocent man when there were so many other innocent men accused or convicted of crimes whose cases might be overshadowed by the attention given to his client. Assume a priest saying that he was grieved to have to concentrate on saving one soul at a time when there are so many unsaved souls in the world that might not be baptized because he tended to the spiritual needs of just one.
Why should paying attention to one particular Cuban political prisoners cause the rest to be forgotten? Wouldn't it have the exact opposite effect? Wouldn't putting the spotlight on one prisoner focus interest on the rest? Even if it didn't (for the sake of argument), wouldn't it focus attention on the system that oppresses the one prisoner, thereby benefitting all political prisoners?
Really I would have expected any of Babalu's editors except Marc Másferrer to make such a statement, and if anybody else had made that statement I would have suspected that it was an indirect criticism aimed at Marc.
No other Cuban blogger has dedicated more of his time and energy to highlighting the cases of individual political prisoner than has Marc Másferrer. As these profiles increase over time, the cumulative effect is a devastating indictment of the regime.
One would think that Marc, at least, realized this. Apparently not.
Or perhaps he meant to say something else and somehow thought and words did not adhere right. Let me, then, forcibly detach them, and see if I can't make them fit better.
Human rights organizations presently put the number of Cuban political prisoners at between 250-350. If you added an additional zero, or two or better still three, you would be closer to actual number of political prisoners in Castro's jails. The definition of a "political crime" used by human rights organization to "adopt" individual prisoners is simply too narrow and unrealistic. It does not take into consideration the myriads of so-called "crimes" in Cuba's penal code which would not come under that rubric in any other country's. For example, "economic sabotage," treated as "theft" in Cuba, can simply mean buying a steak on the black market. That particular "crime" can get you 10 years in a Cuban prison. A citizen who tries to leave or enter the country without the regime's permission, or even to move from one province to another, or from one town to the next, or from one house to another across the street, is deemed a criminal in Cuba but no one else on earth. Aren't persons guilty of such "crimes" also political prisoners? Even the imprisoned black marketeer, who challenges the regime's economic monopoly, isn't he also a political prisoner? If independent journalists or librarians are political prisoners, why not anybody else who works independently of the regime and is penalized for it? There are no doubt independent plumbers, independent cable installers and independent construction workers who are rotting in jail besides the independent journalists and librarians. Men who are not intellectuals, who wield other weapons than paper and pen, should also be classified as politicval prisoners. Yet they are not recognized as political prisoners and have no advocates publicizing their plight in the free world. Worst of all, they are completely invisible unlike those who receive the "seal of approval" of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, etc.
The point that I think — that I hope — Marc was trying to make is that he regrets that he must focus his attention on (relatively) well-known cases such as Normando Hernández's and is obliged to ignore the forgotten political prisoners, unnamed and unchampioned. And, what's worse, unknown.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Is Fidel Castro Dead? Babalú Again Has the (Wrong) Answer
Here we all thought Babalú had a special patented seismograph which let it know whenever Castro's death was imminent. That the seismograph was not very good at forecasting Fidel's death or anything else did not seem as important to us as the blind faith that Val had in it. So great was his trust in this contraption that he staked his blog's reputation and his own by throwing his lot with Perez Hilton, the professional gossipmonger, who went out on no limb himself when he announced, in conjunction with Val, Fidel Castro's demise a month ago. His seismograph (known at other times as "gay radar") must have been beeping too.
In his latest post on Babalú, "Place Your Bets, Folks!" Val reveals that his seismograph is actually Google. Yes, the world's most popular search engine. What makes it a unique resource for Val is that he personally processes its information through a less powerful engine, namely, his brain, using a formula entirely of his own devising, which allows him to know how close Castro is to death hour by hour (or how close the regime is to announcing his passing). Whenever Babalú blog receives an unusual number of visitors via Google who use the search words "fidel castro dead" or some similar wording, and the number of such visitors and queries, as reported by Sitemeter, increases exponentially during the week, Val shakes as if the earth were opening around him and a bell goes off in his head: "Fidel Castro is Dead."
Val then transmits the word urbe ex orbe; an entire mid-size city of 100,000 rushes to his blog to hear more news about Fidel's extinction, which Val assures everybody has the City of Miami and even the White House on "Code Red;" the champagne is put on ice in thousands of Cuban-American homes; noisemakers from last New Year's are unearthed; the flags are unfolded; hearts are beating faster and everybody's imagination is running far ahead of actual developments, when, suddenly, the balloon bursts. Oops, Val proclaims Fidel's demise to be a false alarm. Or is it? Since Fidel is already dead (according to Val), is it really a "false alarm" to announce his death, once, twice or even one-hundred times? Does the truth cease to be the truth because it is pronounced before its time? Is Val not a prophet in the desert? Predicting the death of a moribund 81-year-old should be child's work for a prophet. And yet. It perennially eludes Val and not for want of trying.
Let me be the first to predict that Val will again announce Fidel's death this Friday. That is always a safe bet.
In his latest post on Babalú, "Place Your Bets, Folks!" Val reveals that his seismograph is actually Google. Yes, the world's most popular search engine. What makes it a unique resource for Val is that he personally processes its information through a less powerful engine, namely, his brain, using a formula entirely of his own devising, which allows him to know how close Castro is to death hour by hour (or how close the regime is to announcing his passing). Whenever Babalú blog receives an unusual number of visitors via Google who use the search words "fidel castro dead" or some similar wording, and the number of such visitors and queries, as reported by Sitemeter, increases exponentially during the week, Val shakes as if the earth were opening around him and a bell goes off in his head: "Fidel Castro is Dead."
Val then transmits the word urbe ex orbe; an entire mid-size city of 100,000 rushes to his blog to hear more news about Fidel's extinction, which Val assures everybody has the City of Miami and even the White House on "Code Red;" the champagne is put on ice in thousands of Cuban-American homes; noisemakers from last New Year's are unearthed; the flags are unfolded; hearts are beating faster and everybody's imagination is running far ahead of actual developments, when, suddenly, the balloon bursts. Oops, Val proclaims Fidel's demise to be a false alarm. Or is it? Since Fidel is already dead (according to Val), is it really a "false alarm" to announce his death, once, twice or even one-hundred times? Does the truth cease to be the truth because it is pronounced before its time? Is Val not a prophet in the desert? Predicting the death of a moribund 81-year-old should be child's work for a prophet. And yet. It perennially eludes Val and not for want of trying.
Let me be the first to predict that Val will again announce Fidel's death this Friday. That is always a safe bet.
Can Val Measure Up to Porfirio Rubirosa?
In what must be the strangest Babalú post to date, Val Prieto confessed that this morning (surely not in the "morning") he shared a vampirish kiss with the long-deceased 1950s actress and bon vivant Ava Gardner.
Val better be careful next time he goes to sleep "perchance to dream."
He may just be visited by Porfirio Rubirosa.
Who might just hit him with his polo stick.
Rubirosa was the Dominican ambassador to Cuba (and half a dozen other countries) during the reign of Trujillo. While Jackie Robinson and Jesse Owens were breaking color barriers in sports, "Rubi" (as he was known) was setting records and breaking barriers in another department. Rubirosa bedded every white starlet and billionaire heiress that crossed his path in his storied 40-year career as the planet's most famous Latin lover.
There was even a '50s Cuban song entitled "¿Qué es lo tuyo, Rubirosa?"
When I do frivolous posts, at least I find the Cuban angles.
Val better be careful next time he goes to sleep "perchance to dream."
He may just be visited by Porfirio Rubirosa.
Who might just hit him with his polo stick.
Rubirosa was the Dominican ambassador to Cuba (and half a dozen other countries) during the reign of Trujillo. While Jackie Robinson and Jesse Owens were breaking color barriers in sports, "Rubi" (as he was known) was setting records and breaking barriers in another department. Rubirosa bedded every white starlet and billionaire heiress that crossed his path in his storied 40-year career as the planet's most famous Latin lover.
There was even a '50s Cuban song entitled "¿Qué es lo tuyo, Rubirosa?"
When I do frivolous posts, at least I find the Cuban angles.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Val Prieto Sues for Peace in Babalú-Palmetto Blogwar
And Is Rebuffed By Rick
Let us issue our own sincere call for peace among the belligerents. There it is.
POSTSCRIPT:
Our call to "give peace a chance" has fallen on deaf ears. To be honest, the first deaf ears it fell upon were ours. We don't believe in an artificial peace. Peace can only be obtained through the natural evolution of conflict. If conflict is suppressed, peace can never be certain or permanent. Not until Rick and Val have vented all their bile can there ever be a real peace between them. This can only be the product of a consensus on their mutual interests. Rick is obviously convinced that there are still advantages that can accrue to SotP by continuing this feud. So long as this is the case, no amount of pleading on Val's part will put an end to hostilities. At some point, regardless of Val's avowals, Henry or Val will rise again to the provocation. Nothing has been settled. Val has shown his weakness in suing for a premature peace. Rick has shown his ignobility by rebuffing him. And so it stands.
"I am asking you nicely here in public in your domain to please just leave us alone... You don't like me or Henry or our contributors and I can tell you that we certainly don't hold you in any high regard as well. That's just the way it is. You have an audience and a loyal readership and I wish you continued success. Just please, do us all a favor, and let us be." -- Val Prieto [to Rick] @ Stuck on the Palmetto, Sept. 17.
"Val: Quite simply, SotP comments on things going on in SoFla. You, your blog and your views are part of that. So guess what? Yep, things are going to continue as they have from the day I started this blog." -- Rick [to Val] @ SotP, Sept. 17.
Let us issue our own sincere call for peace among the belligerents. There it is.
POSTSCRIPT:
Our call to "give peace a chance" has fallen on deaf ears. To be honest, the first deaf ears it fell upon were ours. We don't believe in an artificial peace. Peace can only be obtained through the natural evolution of conflict. If conflict is suppressed, peace can never be certain or permanent. Not until Rick and Val have vented all their bile can there ever be a real peace between them. This can only be the product of a consensus on their mutual interests. Rick is obviously convinced that there are still advantages that can accrue to SotP by continuing this feud. So long as this is the case, no amount of pleading on Val's part will put an end to hostilities. At some point, regardless of Val's avowals, Henry or Val will rise again to the provocation. Nothing has been settled. Val has shown his weakness in suing for a premature peace. Rick has shown his ignobility by rebuffing him. And so it stands.
Notable and Quotable
"I consider myself closer to the illegal immigrants than to the Minutemen."
Ángel Rodríguez @ Babalu, Sept. 17, a Cuban-American commenting on Arizona's rabid xenophobia, inflamed and and exploited by the state's Know-Nothing Republican party.
I remember when Cuban-Americans were strong supporters of Newt Gingrich, Georgia's other great gift to American politics. His anti-Castro rhetoric left nothing to be desired. Then he rammed through Congress his "Contract On America," which deprived not only illegals but legal immigrants of all social benefits, including social security. Miami led the country then in the number of suicides among the elderly. Perhaps Fred Thompson will deny non-citizens (legal or otherwise) the right to have driver's licences or deprive the U.S.-born children of foreign-born parents of their citizenship and bar them from attending public schools (both Republican proposals that have been on hold in Congress for a more than a decade).
Useful idiots are not only those who support Communists.
Ángel Rodríguez @ Babalu, Sept. 17, a Cuban-American commenting on Arizona's rabid xenophobia, inflamed and and exploited by the state's Know-Nothing Republican party.
I remember when Cuban-Americans were strong supporters of Newt Gingrich, Georgia's other great gift to American politics. His anti-Castro rhetoric left nothing to be desired. Then he rammed through Congress his "Contract On America," which deprived not only illegals but legal immigrants of all social benefits, including social security. Miami led the country then in the number of suicides among the elderly. Perhaps Fred Thompson will deny non-citizens (legal or otherwise) the right to have driver's licences or deprive the U.S.-born children of foreign-born parents of their citizenship and bar them from attending public schools (both Republican proposals that have been on hold in Congress for a more than a decade).
Useful idiots are not only those who support Communists.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Rick the Prick Visits
Rick said ...
Manny...the reason that babalu pays no attention to you is that you habitually lie. It takes way too much time to deconstruct the lies so they don't bother responding.
For instance, in this post alone, you claim I have a fascination with Santeria. Not true. The only attention I pay to it is when it makes the news.
You also claim I'm in "the heartland," which I assume you mean the heartland of the US. Alas, I returned from there on Friday.
So you see, I've already taken up 3 paragraphs and way too much time denying your lies and have no motivation to address the rest of the BS that your post entails including the fact that you updated and composed most of it after seeing that I had written the post at SotP.
Oh, yes, Manny, RSS feeds don't lie and they show all your corrections and additions.
You are who you are, Manny, and you will never change.
That's why you're ignored.
9/16/2007 8:05 PM
Rick:
So you are not in Tulsa, Oklahoma anymore, Rick? You returned on Friday? Do you communicate to me your itinerary? Do I "lie" because I don't know exactly where you are? As it happens, it is you who are lying, because this morning Tulsa was exactly from where you paid RCAB a visit, according to Sitemeter and Statcounter.
What you are pleased to call "lies" are merely lacunae in your knowledge, and these, of course, are as broad and wide as the West that you claim to crave but will never live in. It is the Miami which Cubans created — the only Miami that you have ever known — which fascinates and attracts you, and which you will never leave. Stop fooling yourself, Rick; you are certainly not fooling anybody else.
Of course, the Babalunians have tried to answer me. Val himself devoted the longest post he ever wrote in the history of Babalú to trying to answer me and deleted it within 2 hours for fear of my reaction. I had saved it, of course; but since he made it disappear, I was in no hurry to answer it. Four months later, when Val felt it was save to return the deleted post to the Archives, I unearthed it and deconstructed it word for word. Never again did Val cross swords with me. Henry, who has borne the brunt of my criticism, has remained silent. He knows better than to hurl obscenities at me. You, however, seem to lend yourself very well to that sort of treatment. Priggish and almost feminine in your sensibilities, humorless and at war with the only part of the world that has ever tolerated your "diversity," you are as easy to insult as you are to ignore. Personally, I would ignore you if you did not foist yourself upon me. The Babalunians, however, make sport of you. You, of course, are too hungry for attention to see it, and even preen yourself on having been noticed by a "national blog." Ironically, Val and Henry are feeding your ego when they mean to deflate it. They have nothing to gain from engaging you but the fun of seeing you make a pompous ass of yourself. Of course, you don't have to feed the coin machine for that to happen: it is your natural state.
Your post at SotP was written after you had read mine. No one comparing the two could arrive at any other conclusion. I don't see that as particularly relevant, though. Are we in a contest to see who can spot first Babalú's deletions? Does it really mean so much to you to scoop everybody on something that has long been public knowledge, which I, in particular, learned about more than two years ago, when Val was still inviting you to visit his home and you were salivating at the prospect of finding someone who would actually take anything that you said about Cuba seriously?
In fact, I decided that it wasn't worth the time or trouble to resurrect Val's deleted post about you. I certainly owed you no favors and it would be mean to deprive you of the impish joy that you seem to take in exposing Babalú's tricks. Its illogic and faulty knowledge of Cuba you could never expose because you share it and improve upon it.
I should congratulate you on assuming White Dade's mantle as the most bigotted and ignorant anti-Cuban blogger in Miami. You have even managed to improve on White Dade by your lack of humor and talent. With you, the caricature overwhelms the caricatured. That is, you are your own best joke. Your only joke.
That's why you are picked on.
Rick said ...
Ahh, Manny...it is you that brought up my visit to the "heartland" so it is you that must be keeping track of my movements around this country. With your numerous posts regarding SotP and now this, just who is foisting themselves on who?
Rest assured, I am in SoFla now and have been since Friday. You really do need to get your Sitemeter, Statcounter or Stargazer, whatever the heck you're using, adjusted. Better yet, just quit obsessing so much.
And again I spend time, this time 2 paragraphs, refuting your BS. See what I mean? You'll never change, although with a dedicated post and the post title itself, you're acting more and more like Henry Gomez every day.
9/17/2007 5:26 AM
Rick:
"Numerous posts regarding SotP"? You wish. I have dedicated only one previous post to your blog, in which I did not even mention it by name. My readers are even perplexed about who are and how to reach SotP in order to read the deleted Babalú posts (see previous thread). Obviously, I must mention you more often. Within reason, of course, since SotP could easily supplant Babalú as this blog's muse, since on questions of Cuba it is even more "confused" and offensive. As for your travels to the heartland, I only regret that it is only your heart that you leave there. There are many besides myself who wish that you would leave the rest of you there too.
I sincerely hope that "Rick the Prick" will catch on. Val, who at heart is the same priggish schoolmarm that you are, also took me to task for calling him (or so he said) a "cocksucker," and that particular post has followed him around since the day I wrote it. If the two of you ever keep your longstanding date, it will no doubt be an interesting meeting.
No, I am never going to change. There you are right. Rely on me as your fixed star when you are baying at the moon.
Manny...the reason that babalu pays no attention to you is that you habitually lie. It takes way too much time to deconstruct the lies so they don't bother responding.
For instance, in this post alone, you claim I have a fascination with Santeria. Not true. The only attention I pay to it is when it makes the news.
You also claim I'm in "the heartland," which I assume you mean the heartland of the US. Alas, I returned from there on Friday.
So you see, I've already taken up 3 paragraphs and way too much time denying your lies and have no motivation to address the rest of the BS that your post entails including the fact that you updated and composed most of it after seeing that I had written the post at SotP.
Oh, yes, Manny, RSS feeds don't lie and they show all your corrections and additions.
You are who you are, Manny, and you will never change.
That's why you're ignored.
9/16/2007 8:05 PM
Rick:
So you are not in Tulsa, Oklahoma anymore, Rick? You returned on Friday? Do you communicate to me your itinerary? Do I "lie" because I don't know exactly where you are? As it happens, it is you who are lying, because this morning Tulsa was exactly from where you paid RCAB a visit, according to Sitemeter and Statcounter.
What you are pleased to call "lies" are merely lacunae in your knowledge, and these, of course, are as broad and wide as the West that you claim to crave but will never live in. It is the Miami which Cubans created — the only Miami that you have ever known — which fascinates and attracts you, and which you will never leave. Stop fooling yourself, Rick; you are certainly not fooling anybody else.
Of course, the Babalunians have tried to answer me. Val himself devoted the longest post he ever wrote in the history of Babalú to trying to answer me and deleted it within 2 hours for fear of my reaction. I had saved it, of course; but since he made it disappear, I was in no hurry to answer it. Four months later, when Val felt it was save to return the deleted post to the Archives, I unearthed it and deconstructed it word for word. Never again did Val cross swords with me. Henry, who has borne the brunt of my criticism, has remained silent. He knows better than to hurl obscenities at me. You, however, seem to lend yourself very well to that sort of treatment. Priggish and almost feminine in your sensibilities, humorless and at war with the only part of the world that has ever tolerated your "diversity," you are as easy to insult as you are to ignore. Personally, I would ignore you if you did not foist yourself upon me. The Babalunians, however, make sport of you. You, of course, are too hungry for attention to see it, and even preen yourself on having been noticed by a "national blog." Ironically, Val and Henry are feeding your ego when they mean to deflate it. They have nothing to gain from engaging you but the fun of seeing you make a pompous ass of yourself. Of course, you don't have to feed the coin machine for that to happen: it is your natural state.
Your post at SotP was written after you had read mine. No one comparing the two could arrive at any other conclusion. I don't see that as particularly relevant, though. Are we in a contest to see who can spot first Babalú's deletions? Does it really mean so much to you to scoop everybody on something that has long been public knowledge, which I, in particular, learned about more than two years ago, when Val was still inviting you to visit his home and you were salivating at the prospect of finding someone who would actually take anything that you said about Cuba seriously?
In fact, I decided that it wasn't worth the time or trouble to resurrect Val's deleted post about you. I certainly owed you no favors and it would be mean to deprive you of the impish joy that you seem to take in exposing Babalú's tricks. Its illogic and faulty knowledge of Cuba you could never expose because you share it and improve upon it.
I should congratulate you on assuming White Dade's mantle as the most bigotted and ignorant anti-Cuban blogger in Miami. You have even managed to improve on White Dade by your lack of humor and talent. With you, the caricature overwhelms the caricatured. That is, you are your own best joke. Your only joke.
That's why you are picked on.
Rick said ...
Ahh, Manny...it is you that brought up my visit to the "heartland" so it is you that must be keeping track of my movements around this country. With your numerous posts regarding SotP and now this, just who is foisting themselves on who?
Rest assured, I am in SoFla now and have been since Friday. You really do need to get your Sitemeter, Statcounter or Stargazer, whatever the heck you're using, adjusted. Better yet, just quit obsessing so much.
And again I spend time, this time 2 paragraphs, refuting your BS. See what I mean? You'll never change, although with a dedicated post and the post title itself, you're acting more and more like Henry Gomez every day.
9/17/2007 5:26 AM
Rick:
"Numerous posts regarding SotP"? You wish. I have dedicated only one previous post to your blog, in which I did not even mention it by name. My readers are even perplexed about who are and how to reach SotP in order to read the deleted Babalú posts (see previous thread). Obviously, I must mention you more often. Within reason, of course, since SotP could easily supplant Babalú as this blog's muse, since on questions of Cuba it is even more "confused" and offensive. As for your travels to the heartland, I only regret that it is only your heart that you leave there. There are many besides myself who wish that you would leave the rest of you there too.
I sincerely hope that "Rick the Prick" will catch on. Val, who at heart is the same priggish schoolmarm that you are, also took me to task for calling him (or so he said) a "cocksucker," and that particular post has followed him around since the day I wrote it. If the two of you ever keep your longstanding date, it will no doubt be an interesting meeting.
No, I am never going to change. There you are right. Rely on me as your fixed star when you are baying at the moon.
Babalú: Deleting Its Way to Sanity
The Babalunians have deleted Henry's post "Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows" on which we commented yesterday. Anyone could have predicted it from the general tenor of the dialogue on Henry's end as well as from Val's ringing of the bell towards the end.
It is Babalú's aspiration, über alles, to be "respectable." This sometimes means fawning, grovelling and other breaches of self-control and self-worth. Even the occasional well-placed obscenity is tolerated; but Henry's fusillades at Rick of Stuck on the Palmetto mostly misfired, not because the gunpowder was wet, but because Henry greased the cannonballs with his own excrement. Such foul language, in mixed company, puts Habla Mierda to shame. Certainly I never elicited such a reaction from Henry and I actually hit him where it hurts. Is Henry really so invested in Fred Thompson that questioning his candidate's motives can awaken in him the ire that pointing out his endless missteps on Cuba does not? Apparently so.
I also wonder what strange powers Rick has over him. Maybe Rick's long association with the wrong sort of Cubans has led him to seek other resources in order to gain mastery over Henry. I should not be surprised as Rick's rhetoric per se is nothing to send a man climbing up the walls. (In fact, Rick has always had a strange fascination with santería; but I didn't expect that to be the road to his assimilation to the dominant culture).
I find it difficult to summon up much sympathy for Henry. A little girl who's been abused every day of her 4-year-old life — well, I can understand her having panic attacks. How else can she get it across to the adolts surrounding her that she doesn't want to be dropped down Castro's well by her father? But Henry, Elenita's sometimes nemesis, should be able to keep his emotions in check, unless his new babies are bringing out the baby in him.
Henry's sparring partner at SotP has yet to notice that yesterday's Babalú post dedicated to him has been deleted but he's been in a daze ever since he repatriated temporarily to the heartland.
Of course, I saved a copy. So did the Babalunians, of course. So did Rick (unless he condemns himself to repeat the past).
Let's see who puts it up again first.
It is Babalú's aspiration, über alles, to be "respectable." This sometimes means fawning, grovelling and other breaches of self-control and self-worth. Even the occasional well-placed obscenity is tolerated; but Henry's fusillades at Rick of Stuck on the Palmetto mostly misfired, not because the gunpowder was wet, but because Henry greased the cannonballs with his own excrement. Such foul language, in mixed company, puts Habla Mierda to shame. Certainly I never elicited such a reaction from Henry and I actually hit him where it hurts. Is Henry really so invested in Fred Thompson that questioning his candidate's motives can awaken in him the ire that pointing out his endless missteps on Cuba does not? Apparently so.
I also wonder what strange powers Rick has over him. Maybe Rick's long association with the wrong sort of Cubans has led him to seek other resources in order to gain mastery over Henry. I should not be surprised as Rick's rhetoric per se is nothing to send a man climbing up the walls. (In fact, Rick has always had a strange fascination with santería; but I didn't expect that to be the road to his assimilation to the dominant culture).
I find it difficult to summon up much sympathy for Henry. A little girl who's been abused every day of her 4-year-old life — well, I can understand her having panic attacks. How else can she get it across to the adolts surrounding her that she doesn't want to be dropped down Castro's well by her father? But Henry, Elenita's sometimes nemesis, should be able to keep his emotions in check, unless his new babies are bringing out the baby in him.
Henry's sparring partner at SotP has yet to notice that yesterday's Babalú post dedicated to him has been deleted but he's been in a daze ever since he repatriated temporarily to the heartland.
Of course, I saved a copy. So did the Babalunians, of course. So did Rick (unless he condemns himself to repeat the past).
Let's see who puts it up again first.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Henry Gómez Tries to Drag Me Into the "Babalú-Palmetto" War
I declared my official neutrality in the Babalú-Palmetto War more than 2 weeks ago. But we can't really expect Henry Gómez to play by the rules of civilized warfare, because what Habla Mierda speaks, Henry plays with.
I have been dragged into the the "T-Shirt War" (as I dubbed it) against my better judgment to deny Henry Gómez's implication that there exists a Great Alliance arrayed against Babalú, composed of "Tellechea, South of the Palmetto and Habla Mierda." Well, this is news to me. Let me assure Henry that I do not associate with these blogs any more than I do with Babalú. In fact, if I were to create an alliance against Babalú, I would be sure to exclude them.
Watching Henry and Rick arguing is like watching Tweedledum and Tweedledee go at it; great fun if your patience for idiots is infinite. They are now crossing swords over Fred Thompson when both should be joining him in sticking their swords into the defenseless Cuban balseros as is their wont. The Coast Guard can teach them how. Rick is a fast learner, especially when his heart is in it. And Henry, of course, can't wait to get at those smugglers that bring Castro's slaves to freedom.
As I have said before and will say here again: there has never been a single case of a balsero being charged or convicted of espionage or sabotage in the history of this country. Period. Find another bogeyman: that one does not exist.
It is instructive to see how Henry, who knows better than to ever challenge me on RCAB or even Babalú, because he knows what will happen to him — exactly what happened to his simpleton of a boss when he tried it — nevertheless names me as the first among his enemies when engaged in an equal contest with Rick. He has no qualms about mentioning Stuck on the Palmetto, Mamb[o] Watch or Habla Mierda, but when he refers to me it is as "Tellechea." Why? Because he is too afraid to ever mention my blog by name on Babalú. He knows that the day he does will be the beginning of the end for Babalú. The RCAB Archives holds enough material to sink Babalú one hundred times over, which fact is not lost on the pusillanimous Babalunians.
POSTSCRIPT:
I hereby nominate this comment as the stupidest that has ever been made on any Cuban-themed blog in immemorial history:
Dick is a dick. He, Tellechea, and the anonymous Mambi Watcher need to get a life, really. They sound like frustrated underachievers to me. Who are these clowns, anyway? Does anyone know who they are.
Posted by: mrcs_Concepcion at September 15, 2007 03:09 AM
"Who are these clowns, anyway. Does anyone know who they are?"
You know my name. You just cited it, you idiot. You don't know the identities of the other two. If you are interested in Mambo's name, I suggest you ask Babalú editor Marc R. Másferrer, who links Mambo Watch on his own blog, Uncommon Sense. As for Rick's identity, just ask Henry. There's only one degree of separation between them.
Henry Explains Fred Thompson to Us
Fred Thompson: Cuban "Immigrants" Are Suitcase
"The Most Serious, Systematic Revolutionary of Modern Times"
I have been dragged into the the "T-Shirt War" (as I dubbed it) against my better judgment to deny Henry Gómez's implication that there exists a Great Alliance arrayed against Babalú, composed of "Tellechea, South of the Palmetto and Habla Mierda." Well, this is news to me. Let me assure Henry that I do not associate with these blogs any more than I do with Babalú. In fact, if I were to create an alliance against Babalú, I would be sure to exclude them.
Watching Henry and Rick arguing is like watching Tweedledum and Tweedledee go at it; great fun if your patience for idiots is infinite. They are now crossing swords over Fred Thompson when both should be joining him in sticking their swords into the defenseless Cuban balseros as is their wont. The Coast Guard can teach them how. Rick is a fast learner, especially when his heart is in it. And Henry, of course, can't wait to get at those smugglers that bring Castro's slaves to freedom.
As I have said before and will say here again: there has never been a single case of a balsero being charged or convicted of espionage or sabotage in the history of this country. Period. Find another bogeyman: that one does not exist.
It is instructive to see how Henry, who knows better than to ever challenge me on RCAB or even Babalú, because he knows what will happen to him — exactly what happened to his simpleton of a boss when he tried it — nevertheless names me as the first among his enemies when engaged in an equal contest with Rick. He has no qualms about mentioning Stuck on the Palmetto, Mamb[o] Watch or Habla Mierda, but when he refers to me it is as "Tellechea." Why? Because he is too afraid to ever mention my blog by name on Babalú. He knows that the day he does will be the beginning of the end for Babalú. The RCAB Archives holds enough material to sink Babalú one hundred times over, which fact is not lost on the pusillanimous Babalunians.
POSTSCRIPT:
I hereby nominate this comment as the stupidest that has ever been made on any Cuban-themed blog in immemorial history:
Dick is a dick. He, Tellechea, and the anonymous Mambi Watcher need to get a life, really. They sound like frustrated underachievers to me. Who are these clowns, anyway? Does anyone know who they are.
Posted by: mrcs_Concepcion at September 15, 2007 03:09 AM
"Who are these clowns, anyway. Does anyone know who they are?"
You know my name. You just cited it, you idiot. You don't know the identities of the other two. If you are interested in Mambo's name, I suggest you ask Babalú editor Marc R. Másferrer, who links Mambo Watch on his own blog, Uncommon Sense. As for Rick's identity, just ask Henry. There's only one degree of separation between them.
Henry Explains Fred Thompson to Us
Fred Thompson: Cuban "Immigrants" Are Suitcase
"The Most Serious, Systematic Revolutionary of Modern Times"
The Real Parents — Joe and María Cubas
She has the precociousness of children who have known great suffering all their lives. And the anger. And the pain. This, in a nutshell, was the opinion of Elenita's psychologist, who testified this week after the girl's birth father. You could call this testimony the summation of all the abuse visited on her by her parents from the day she was born: an angry child who bites her classmates and pulls their hair (the same abuse practiced on her by her mother) and who has panic attacks every time she is forced by the Court to visit her birth father; for she lives in dread fear of being returned to his custody or her birth mother's.
This is what the two monsters from Cabaiguán have done to the child of Joe and María Cubas, the people that Elenita and her brother call "father" and "mother."
Not enough has been said — in fact, nothing has been said — of their love and sacrifice for these children, great in itself but even greater when contrasted to the birth parents' endless inhumanity.
Elenita presents all the problems, all the issues and all the challenges that a child raised in her circumstances cannot avoid. Wealthy people like the Cubases don't need to encumber themselves with such problems. Adoption, which offers few possibilities to prospective parents of average means, offers infinite choices to them. They did not have to adopt children with special needs, what the heartless call "damaged children" but should more accurately be called the victims of damaged parents. They did not need to spend a million dollars in lawyers and psychologists in the slim hope that their foster daughter will not be forced to resume her life of abuse with her birth parents in Cuba. But, thank God, that they could and did!
Raising children, whether one's own or somebody else's, entails a lifetime of commitment and responsibility; but in Joe and María, the disposition to accept this responsibility, which God thrust on them, unasked and unexpected, bespeaks rare compassion and uncommon goodness.
[Do not neglect reading the 2 part of the previous article, which has just been posted].
This is what the two monsters from Cabaiguán have done to the child of Joe and María Cubas, the people that Elenita and her brother call "father" and "mother."
Not enough has been said — in fact, nothing has been said — of their love and sacrifice for these children, great in itself but even greater when contrasted to the birth parents' endless inhumanity.
Elenita presents all the problems, all the issues and all the challenges that a child raised in her circumstances cannot avoid. Wealthy people like the Cubases don't need to encumber themselves with such problems. Adoption, which offers few possibilities to prospective parents of average means, offers infinite choices to them. They did not have to adopt children with special needs, what the heartless call "damaged children" but should more accurately be called the victims of damaged parents. They did not need to spend a million dollars in lawyers and psychologists in the slim hope that their foster daughter will not be forced to resume her life of abuse with her birth parents in Cuba. But, thank God, that they could and did!
Raising children, whether one's own or somebody else's, entails a lifetime of commitment and responsibility; but in Joe and María, the disposition to accept this responsibility, which God thrust on them, unasked and unexpected, bespeaks rare compassion and uncommon goodness.
[Do not neglect reading the 2 part of the previous article, which has just been posted].
Friday, September 14, 2007
Judge Jeri Beth Cohen Gets Her Man (Off)
We didn't exactly have a bet on it, but, as it happened, Alex of Stuck on the Palmetto and I both wrote posts on Rafael Izquierdo's comportment on the witness stand, in which Alex claimed that the absentee-for-life father was a guajiro macho (he-man country bumpkin) and I claimed he was no guajiro (noble representative of our country's finest virtues). No doubt we were talking past each other, as usual. I suppose that someone who understands us both might be able to reconcile our positions; for I don't deny that the guajiro may be in some ways uncouthe, and Alex, I am sure, is not oblivious to the guajiro's homely virtues. Still, it seems that, strictly from the facts, I have the advantage on Alex; for no "guajiro macho," as he calls Izquierdo, would break down on the stand when being questioned by Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, whose attitude towards him has always been "there's-nothing-you-can-do-or-say-that- will-ever-stop-me-from-ruling-in-your-favor."
But break down he did after a week of defiantly answering questions or defiantly refusing to answer questions on both examination and cross-examination. He had acted throughout his testimony as a bully, the kind of man who projects an image of domination and no self-control; completely unsympathetic from beginning to end, loud, bellicose and strangely detached from his circumstances, perjuring himself and obstructing justice every step of his tortuous way. Really, who would want such a man for a father? Even having him sit next to you on a bus would be an unpleasant experience.
What could Rafael Izquierdo do to reverse the loathsome image he had painted of himself on the witness stand? Only one thing: break down in tears under the sympathetic gaze of Judge Cohen; show the world that it was all a front, that he really is a tormented soul seeking to vindicate his (long-renounced and -neglected) parental rights; no mere stooge of the Castro regime, which pays for "his" lawyers, his lodgings and his victuals, besides providing him with a generous allowance and all the "protection" they can foist on him in a free country, while he pursues their vendetta against Joe Cubas.
The tears worked. They affected the only person that they really had to affect — the judge. Of course, even Izquierdo's sneezing affects her. Indeed, it is very affecting to see the woman who said in that very courtroom in 2005 that the way to eliminate crime in Miami would be to deport all Cubans to Cuba, coddling and almost caressing with verbal-petals this suborned perjurer whom she should have remanded to prison along with his ex-girlfriend and his whole legal staff for contempt of court and obstruction of justice.
"I am honest and sincere," he said.
Well, that was good enough for her.
Judge Cohen assured Izquierdo that his lies are not enough per se to strip him of his daughter's custody: "It [the perjury] doesn't mean you are a bad guy. It doesn't mean I don't believe other parts of your testimony. It doesn't mean you don't love your daughter."
Whereupon Izquierdo became "unmanned," as they used to say. That is, he lost it. This testimonial of the judge's high opinion of him was too much to bear in silence. So he wept; wept for joy, really, because he realized that he had this bitch in his pocket like half the women of Camaiguán.
Then he apologized to the court for losing control of his emotions.
And the judge, seeking to console him, approved and validated those rare tears (a lot of dabbing of his eyes with a blue handkerchief but no visible tears):
"You have nothing to apologize for, and you don't have to be embarrassed about crying," the judge said, leaning closer to the witness box. "But I needed these answers from you." "I hope you don't feel I've ganged up on you," she said.
So, in effect, Judge Cohen ended up apologizing to him for doubting Izquierdo's veracity, the perjury, falsification of evidence and obstruction of justice notwithstanding.
The worst was yet to come, however.
2
One of the lies that Rafael Izquierdo was compelled to retract on the witness stand, so overwhelming was the evidence contradicting it, was his prior assertion that he did not know of his ex-girlfriend's mental illness, and, therefore, had acted in good faith when he surrendered sole custody of his daughter to her in order to facilitate her immigration to the U.S. If he indeed had been in the dark about Elena Pérez's mental illness then he would have been a bigger lunatic than her. Everybody in Cabaiguán was aware of her mental illness. Elerna Pérez had been the town crazie before, during and after her relationship with Izquierdo. Her reputation in fact extended to all refugees from her native Camaiguán in the last 15 years, who could have been called as witnesses corroborate that she was widely known to be crazy and that it would have been impossible for Rafael Izquierdo not to have known that his daughter's mother was crazy.
Unable to plausibly deny it, Izquierdo admitted that he did know. It was a pivotal moment in the trial: irrefutable proof that he had abandoned his daughter into the hands of a lunatic whose illness put her at risk of doing violence to herself or others, especially, of course, to those who directly depended on her and over whom she had absolute control. The abuse had already occurred in Cuba. Why would it not re-occur here?
After Izquierdo's belated and opportunistic tears, Judge Cohen, without so much as an explanation for her action, excused his perjury on that score by ruling Izquierdo's knowledge of Elena Pérez's mental illness irrelevant, and ordered the Department of Children and Families to drop all charges of abandonment flowing from Izquierdo's indifference to it as it concerned his daughter.
This will be a very hard case to win, she admonished the state for 603rd time, having just made it that more difficult by her arbitrary decision.
The question naturally arises if mental illness with suicidal ideation and abusive behavior poses a clear and present danger to children in the custody of such a parent so afflicted, a danger which other adults, and particularly the other parent, are obliged to protect them from. Judge Cohen has ruled that no such obligation exists on the part of the sane parent. It follows, naturally — or unnaturrally — that the sane parent must not avail himself of the insane parent's insanity to deny custody to the insane parent, and should not be held accountable if by ceding such custody to the insane, the child is abused or even killed by the insane parent.
Makes sense to you? Of course not. Elena Pérez is not the only lunatic in that courtroom.
But break down he did after a week of defiantly answering questions or defiantly refusing to answer questions on both examination and cross-examination. He had acted throughout his testimony as a bully, the kind of man who projects an image of domination and no self-control; completely unsympathetic from beginning to end, loud, bellicose and strangely detached from his circumstances, perjuring himself and obstructing justice every step of his tortuous way. Really, who would want such a man for a father? Even having him sit next to you on a bus would be an unpleasant experience.
What could Rafael Izquierdo do to reverse the loathsome image he had painted of himself on the witness stand? Only one thing: break down in tears under the sympathetic gaze of Judge Cohen; show the world that it was all a front, that he really is a tormented soul seeking to vindicate his (long-renounced and -neglected) parental rights; no mere stooge of the Castro regime, which pays for "his" lawyers, his lodgings and his victuals, besides providing him with a generous allowance and all the "protection" they can foist on him in a free country, while he pursues their vendetta against Joe Cubas.
The tears worked. They affected the only person that they really had to affect — the judge. Of course, even Izquierdo's sneezing affects her. Indeed, it is very affecting to see the woman who said in that very courtroom in 2005 that the way to eliminate crime in Miami would be to deport all Cubans to Cuba, coddling and almost caressing with verbal-petals this suborned perjurer whom she should have remanded to prison along with his ex-girlfriend and his whole legal staff for contempt of court and obstruction of justice.
"I am honest and sincere," he said.
Well, that was good enough for her.
Judge Cohen assured Izquierdo that his lies are not enough per se to strip him of his daughter's custody: "It [the perjury] doesn't mean you are a bad guy. It doesn't mean I don't believe other parts of your testimony. It doesn't mean you don't love your daughter."
Whereupon Izquierdo became "unmanned," as they used to say. That is, he lost it. This testimonial of the judge's high opinion of him was too much to bear in silence. So he wept; wept for joy, really, because he realized that he had this bitch in his pocket like half the women of Camaiguán.
Then he apologized to the court for losing control of his emotions.
And the judge, seeking to console him, approved and validated those rare tears (a lot of dabbing of his eyes with a blue handkerchief but no visible tears):
"You have nothing to apologize for, and you don't have to be embarrassed about crying," the judge said, leaning closer to the witness box. "But I needed these answers from you." "I hope you don't feel I've ganged up on you," she said.
So, in effect, Judge Cohen ended up apologizing to him for doubting Izquierdo's veracity, the perjury, falsification of evidence and obstruction of justice notwithstanding.
The worst was yet to come, however.
One of the lies that Rafael Izquierdo was compelled to retract on the witness stand, so overwhelming was the evidence contradicting it, was his prior assertion that he did not know of his ex-girlfriend's mental illness, and, therefore, had acted in good faith when he surrendered sole custody of his daughter to her in order to facilitate her immigration to the U.S. If he indeed had been in the dark about Elena Pérez's mental illness then he would have been a bigger lunatic than her. Everybody in Cabaiguán was aware of her mental illness. Elerna Pérez had been the town crazie before, during and after her relationship with Izquierdo. Her reputation in fact extended to all refugees from her native Camaiguán in the last 15 years, who could have been called as witnesses corroborate that she was widely known to be crazy and that it would have been impossible for Rafael Izquierdo not to have known that his daughter's mother was crazy.
Unable to plausibly deny it, Izquierdo admitted that he did know. It was a pivotal moment in the trial: irrefutable proof that he had abandoned his daughter into the hands of a lunatic whose illness put her at risk of doing violence to herself or others, especially, of course, to those who directly depended on her and over whom she had absolute control. The abuse had already occurred in Cuba. Why would it not re-occur here?
After Izquierdo's belated and opportunistic tears, Judge Cohen, without so much as an explanation for her action, excused his perjury on that score by ruling Izquierdo's knowledge of Elena Pérez's mental illness irrelevant, and ordered the Department of Children and Families to drop all charges of abandonment flowing from Izquierdo's indifference to it as it concerned his daughter.
This will be a very hard case to win, she admonished the state for 603rd time, having just made it that more difficult by her arbitrary decision.
The question naturally arises if mental illness with suicidal ideation and abusive behavior poses a clear and present danger to children in the custody of such a parent so afflicted, a danger which other adults, and particularly the other parent, are obliged to protect them from. Judge Cohen has ruled that no such obligation exists on the part of the sane parent. It follows, naturally — or unnaturrally — that the sane parent must not avail himself of the insane parent's insanity to deny custody to the insane parent, and should not be held accountable if by ceding such custody to the insane, the child is abused or even killed by the insane parent.
Makes sense to you? Of course not. Elena Pérez is not the only lunatic in that courtroom.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Wonderful News: Joy Abounding!
By popular demand, I am pleased to announce the birth of a new blog.
No, it is not Anti-White-Dade or Babalú Review. Not even Babalú Revue.
But something even more exciting.
Long-awaited.
And new.
Stay tuned.
In just minutes ...
Seconds...
Anticipation is 99 percent of the thrill.
The new blog will be revealed at exactly 9:01 pm (if we have a sufficiently large audience).
Do not miss this — one of the epic moments in RCAB history.
Eat hearty; for this shall be the dessert.
9:01 pm.
No, it is not Anti-White-Dade or Babalú Review. Not even Babalú Revue.
But something even more exciting.
Long-awaited.
And new.
Stay tuned.
In just minutes ...
Seconds...
Anticipation is 99 percent of the thrill.
The new blog will be revealed at exactly 9:01 pm (if we have a sufficiently large audience).
Do not miss this — one of the epic moments in RCAB history.
Eat hearty; for this shall be the dessert.
9:01 pm.
The long-anticipated news:
The Madhouse is open to everybody!
This venerable RCAB institution, where unwell commenters and obscene and scatological comments find a home and shelter, exiled but not deleted, throws its doors open to inspection by all our readers. Of course, it has always been open to view; it's just not readily accessible, as some have noted here. Now, however, by popular request, The Madhouse has its own distinct persona and place as RCAB's first blog annex.
Go down to the bottom of this page. You will find The Madhouse first among the "Fraternal Links."
Do not go there if you are faint of heart and please don't get lost. We can guarantee you free passage there but not out. RCAB is not responsible for any actions committed by the derelicts there.
Now begin the rush!
[Yes, at the bottom of this page is the link to The Madhouse. I would put it here but you have to get used to going to the bottom of the page].
Henry Gómez Liberates Red China
Someday statues of Henry Gómez will be as common in China as statues of Gerald Ford are in Poland; for Henry Gómez "liberated" China on the Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour last night as surely as Ford "liberated" Poland during the 1980 Ford-Carter presidential debates. China, in case you didn't tune in, is no longer a Communist state. Henry says so, and I am sure we can't ask for a higher authority. But just in case, George Moneo agrees, since he raised no objection to Henry's assertion. If Raúl Castro ever implements the Chinese economic model, Henry will no doubt proclaim Cuba's "liberation" too. And George will agree.
No matter that so-called economic liberalization in Red China (yes, I still call it that since it is that) has led to neither prosperity nor freedom for the Chinese people. The biggest untold story of the 21st century is the Great Famine that has been afflicting the Chinese countryside for the last decade, greater in scope and severity than any other in Chinese history, which is saying a lot.
And on August 9, three days before Henry proclaimed China's "liberation" from Communism, the U.S.-based Cardinal Kung Foundation revealed that Bishop Han Dingxiang had died while in police custody. The Rev. Dingxiang, 71, a bishop in China's underground Catholic Church, recognized by Rome but not Beijing, had been arrested 11 times and spent 35 years in prison, labor camps and under house arrest before his latest incarceration 8 years ago. With remarkable precision, Chinese authorities summoned his family to his bedside one hour before his death. They had not seen him since 1999. State authorities did not allow an autopsy and his remains were cremated (contrary to Catholic practice) and buried within hours.
One more Chinese added to the 120-million casualties of Communism in China, and another saint and martyr to the rolls of the Catholic Church.
Has anything changed in China since the Communist takeover? No. You could have been reading this same story in 1949 or any year in the last 58 of Communist rule in China. Nothing has changed but the size of the blindspot of dupes like Henry Gómez.
http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/press/070910.htm
No matter that so-called economic liberalization in Red China (yes, I still call it that since it is that) has led to neither prosperity nor freedom for the Chinese people. The biggest untold story of the 21st century is the Great Famine that has been afflicting the Chinese countryside for the last decade, greater in scope and severity than any other in Chinese history, which is saying a lot.
And on August 9, three days before Henry proclaimed China's "liberation" from Communism, the U.S.-based Cardinal Kung Foundation revealed that Bishop Han Dingxiang had died while in police custody. The Rev. Dingxiang, 71, a bishop in China's underground Catholic Church, recognized by Rome but not Beijing, had been arrested 11 times and spent 35 years in prison, labor camps and under house arrest before his latest incarceration 8 years ago. With remarkable precision, Chinese authorities summoned his family to his bedside one hour before his death. They had not seen him since 1999. State authorities did not allow an autopsy and his remains were cremated (contrary to Catholic practice) and buried within hours.
One more Chinese added to the 120-million casualties of Communism in China, and another saint and martyr to the rolls of the Catholic Church.
Has anything changed in China since the Communist takeover? No. You could have been reading this same story in 1949 or any year in the last 58 of Communist rule in China. Nothing has changed but the size of the blindspot of dupes like Henry Gómez.
http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/press/070910.htm
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
White Dade R.I.P.
As this is a review of Cuban-American blogs, I do not usually concern myself with blogs written by Anglos for the expressed purpose of heaping scorn on Cubans and Hispanics in general. Perhaps I should. The most prominent of these blogs is (or was) White Dade. I only learned of its existence at its funeral. The author was obliged to close his blog when he was "outed" as a racist by his college newspaper. Before the prospect of losing his sinecure as a grad-student-cum-instructor, he put away his bedsheet and closed his blog. Well, almost. He has already had more farewells than Maria Callas. He can't seem to let go of his fixation and keeps revisiting it "for one last time" often. Ultimately, I believe he will give up the sinecure; he seems far more vested in spreading racial and ethnic division in Dade County, which is like taking coal to Newcastle.
One of White Dade's last posts was written as HBC (Hot Blonde Chick). In it he/she complains endlessly about the unwanted attentions of short Hispanic men at local bars, where at 6'2" he/she towers over everybody. White Dade seems particularly fixated with the size of Hispanic men's penises, which he believes to be smaller than the endowments of white men. (Where is that study?) HBC's "multiple references to Hispanic guys's dick sizes," which White Dade supposedly had to tone down, bespeaks more than a casual acquaintance. Repulsed by Hispanic men, HBC nonetheless seems to be as fixated on their dicks as the schoolmarms and typists who used to go on week-ends to Havana before the Revolution rebuckled their chastity belts.
I always thought that Freud was an imposter, a self-deluded imposter, but an imposter nonetheless. Now I am not so sure anymore. Perhaps everything can ultimately be reduced to and interpreted in the light of penis envy. Where Freud appears to have gone wrong is in attributing this psychosis to women.
http://whitedade.blogspot.com/2007/06/white-girls-perspective-on-latin-guys.html
And don't miss this one:
http://whitedade.blogspot.com/2007/06/jedge-not-by-color-of-on.html
DIALOGUE WITH WHITE DADE:
White Dade said...
In order to properly rip me, you must first be accurate.
I quit the blog long before the paper said anything about me becasue I was MOVING. As in it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about life as a White guy in Miami when you do not, in fact, live in Miami. That and all my good ideas were being used up on my PAID writing job, which I got as a result of my work on White Dade.
Second, HBC is, in fact, a female friend of mine who wrote that post. If you had any sense of perception of literary style it would be faily obvious form the outset that that piece was written by someone else. Even Alex over on SOTP said it was the one post he really didn't like, most likely because it was not written by me.
If you don't like me, fine. but get your facts straight first. I hate nothing more than criticism that is completely inaccurate.
9/12/2007 2:43 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
White Dade:
I only regret that I did not know about your blog before your late capitulation to political correctness. Not actually living in Dade County would not, I think, have been an encumbrance to you; principles, especially warped ones, remain in place even when one does not.
Your "good ideas" were being used up elsewhere, you say? So you have only a limited quantity at your disposal and must market those as profitably as you can?
What is this other renumerative gig of yours? Editor of the New Klan Klugle? Well, a PAID writing job is a PAID writing job.
It is precisely because I can read someone's style as if it were his fingerprints that I can assert definitively that HBC is your alter ego.
Although I just met you, I will certainly miss you; and more sincerely, I think, than those who actually like you. Oh, what a target you would have provided! No need to stuff bogeymen with you around.
I wish you succeess and distance in all your future endeavors. Wherever you go in life I am sure that your writings will always be informed by that little racist voice speaking from inside you.
9/12/2007 4:05 PM
White Dade said...
Manny My Man -
There is plenty in the archives I'm sure oyu could misinterpret and rip. Have fun with that.
HBC is not me. I assure you. I actually forwarded your comments to her and she told me her fixation is pretty much on dick in general, and she does not discriminate on the basis of color, jsut size. Why she prefers black men, apparently. Hispanics, no. But blacks, yes.
90 seconds of research will have you finding my paid wiritngs.I am no more PC than I used to be, I just don't have much to rant about since Gainesvilel operates liek America and Miami does not.
And please, tell me one place in Miami you can avoid Cuban culture. Even in Pinecrest and Palmetto Bay, perhaps the only Ameircan parts left in Miami, you get cashiers and deli workers who dont' speak English.
Whatever, Manny. I respect your right to be wrong. I will let you have the last word. Thank you, and good luck to you and your organization.
9/12/2007 10:21 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Daddy Whitie:
I'm afraid I require a living entity for purposes of vivisection; a corpse will not do. You have murdered your precious child, or, rather, sacrificed it on the altar of political correctness. Your convictions were not stronger than your quest for respectabilty. This you would never have achieved with the baggage of your convictions, so you have tossed those aside for the moment while you wait for fortune to annoint you and carry you beyond the limits of Gainsville, FL. Talk of living in a cultural ghetto, or, rather vacuum. How desperately you must miss Miami and its rich tapestry of cultures! If you are forlorn in Gainsville you can always visit the nearest trailer park, which is certain to be within walking distance. There you will find a cosmopolitan slice of the Old South as yet unreconstructed. Perhaps you will be able to find solace there. Despite what you think, you are not alone quite yet.
If seeing the faces or hearing the voices of Hispanics annoys you, however, then, I'm afraid, there is no escape for you,
9/12/2007 10:51 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
White Dade:
Like most Anglos whose acquaintance with Hispanics never proceeds beyond the bagboy at the supermarket (who is never Cuban), you cannot tell Hispanics apart and confuse Mexicans and Central Americans for Cubans. Yes, Mexicans and Central Americans are shorter in height than other Hispanics because of their indigenous heritage. Cubans, who are either white, black or some admixture threof, are not short; and those raised in this country, with the right nutrition, are rarely if ever short. The height of Cuban-Americans is comparable to that of Anglo-Americans and that may be the only area where they are comparable. In terms of education and income, and, indeed, on all other indices of socio-economic development, Cuban-Americans lead Anglos. So if the flashy car (and money behind it) is what appeals to the [Ho]t [B]londe [C]hick, she is more likely to find it with Cuban-Americans than with, well, White Dade.
About HBC, she is demonstrably you; that part of you, which no male can confess, which fears the reason you always strike out with Cuban-American females or lose out to Cuban-American males is that Anglos have smaller dicks. Your way of compensating for this perceived deficiency is to create an imaginary female who attests that Hispanics have smaller dicks than whites though she claims never to have bedded one (preferring instead black men).
For real white women the first stop on the road to black men is usually brown men, and many never go any farther because they get from Hispanic men all that they want or can handle without proceeding farther down the racial divide, which in America means becoming a social pariah.
9/13/2007 8:28 AM
One of White Dade's last posts was written as HBC (Hot Blonde Chick). In it he/she complains endlessly about the unwanted attentions of short Hispanic men at local bars, where at 6'2" he/she towers over everybody. White Dade seems particularly fixated with the size of Hispanic men's penises, which he believes to be smaller than the endowments of white men. (Where is that study?) HBC's "multiple references to Hispanic guys's dick sizes," which White Dade supposedly had to tone down, bespeaks more than a casual acquaintance. Repulsed by Hispanic men, HBC nonetheless seems to be as fixated on their dicks as the schoolmarms and typists who used to go on week-ends to Havana before the Revolution rebuckled their chastity belts.
I always thought that Freud was an imposter, a self-deluded imposter, but an imposter nonetheless. Now I am not so sure anymore. Perhaps everything can ultimately be reduced to and interpreted in the light of penis envy. Where Freud appears to have gone wrong is in attributing this psychosis to women.
http://whitedade.blogspot.com/2007/06/white-girls-perspective-on-latin-guys.html
And don't miss this one:
http://whitedade.blogspot.com/2007/06/jedge-not-by-color-of-on.html
DIALOGUE WITH WHITE DADE:
White Dade said...
In order to properly rip me, you must first be accurate.
I quit the blog long before the paper said anything about me becasue I was MOVING. As in it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about life as a White guy in Miami when you do not, in fact, live in Miami. That and all my good ideas were being used up on my PAID writing job, which I got as a result of my work on White Dade.
Second, HBC is, in fact, a female friend of mine who wrote that post. If you had any sense of perception of literary style it would be faily obvious form the outset that that piece was written by someone else. Even Alex over on SOTP said it was the one post he really didn't like, most likely because it was not written by me.
If you don't like me, fine. but get your facts straight first. I hate nothing more than criticism that is completely inaccurate.
9/12/2007 2:43 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
White Dade:
I only regret that I did not know about your blog before your late capitulation to political correctness. Not actually living in Dade County would not, I think, have been an encumbrance to you; principles, especially warped ones, remain in place even when one does not.
Your "good ideas" were being used up elsewhere, you say? So you have only a limited quantity at your disposal and must market those as profitably as you can?
What is this other renumerative gig of yours? Editor of the New Klan Klugle? Well, a PAID writing job is a PAID writing job.
It is precisely because I can read someone's style as if it were his fingerprints that I can assert definitively that HBC is your alter ego.
Although I just met you, I will certainly miss you; and more sincerely, I think, than those who actually like you. Oh, what a target you would have provided! No need to stuff bogeymen with you around.
I wish you succeess and distance in all your future endeavors. Wherever you go in life I am sure that your writings will always be informed by that little racist voice speaking from inside you.
9/12/2007 4:05 PM
White Dade said...
Manny My Man -
There is plenty in the archives I'm sure oyu could misinterpret and rip. Have fun with that.
HBC is not me. I assure you. I actually forwarded your comments to her and she told me her fixation is pretty much on dick in general, and she does not discriminate on the basis of color, jsut size. Why she prefers black men, apparently. Hispanics, no. But blacks, yes.
90 seconds of research will have you finding my paid wiritngs.I am no more PC than I used to be, I just don't have much to rant about since Gainesvilel operates liek America and Miami does not.
And please, tell me one place in Miami you can avoid Cuban culture. Even in Pinecrest and Palmetto Bay, perhaps the only Ameircan parts left in Miami, you get cashiers and deli workers who dont' speak English.
Whatever, Manny. I respect your right to be wrong. I will let you have the last word. Thank you, and good luck to you and your organization.
9/12/2007 10:21 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Daddy Whitie:
I'm afraid I require a living entity for purposes of vivisection; a corpse will not do. You have murdered your precious child, or, rather, sacrificed it on the altar of political correctness. Your convictions were not stronger than your quest for respectabilty. This you would never have achieved with the baggage of your convictions, so you have tossed those aside for the moment while you wait for fortune to annoint you and carry you beyond the limits of Gainsville, FL. Talk of living in a cultural ghetto, or, rather vacuum. How desperately you must miss Miami and its rich tapestry of cultures! If you are forlorn in Gainsville you can always visit the nearest trailer park, which is certain to be within walking distance. There you will find a cosmopolitan slice of the Old South as yet unreconstructed. Perhaps you will be able to find solace there. Despite what you think, you are not alone quite yet.
If seeing the faces or hearing the voices of Hispanics annoys you, however, then, I'm afraid, there is no escape for you,
9/12/2007 10:51 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
White Dade:
Like most Anglos whose acquaintance with Hispanics never proceeds beyond the bagboy at the supermarket (who is never Cuban), you cannot tell Hispanics apart and confuse Mexicans and Central Americans for Cubans. Yes, Mexicans and Central Americans are shorter in height than other Hispanics because of their indigenous heritage. Cubans, who are either white, black or some admixture threof, are not short; and those raised in this country, with the right nutrition, are rarely if ever short. The height of Cuban-Americans is comparable to that of Anglo-Americans and that may be the only area where they are comparable. In terms of education and income, and, indeed, on all other indices of socio-economic development, Cuban-Americans lead Anglos. So if the flashy car (and money behind it) is what appeals to the [Ho]t [B]londe [C]hick, she is more likely to find it with Cuban-Americans than with, well, White Dade.
About HBC, she is demonstrably you; that part of you, which no male can confess, which fears the reason you always strike out with Cuban-American females or lose out to Cuban-American males is that Anglos have smaller dicks. Your way of compensating for this perceived deficiency is to create an imaginary female who attests that Hispanics have smaller dicks than whites though she claims never to have bedded one (preferring instead black men).
For real white women the first stop on the road to black men is usually brown men, and many never go any farther because they get from Hispanic men all that they want or can handle without proceeding farther down the racial divide, which in America means becoming a social pariah.
9/13/2007 8:28 AM
The Bay of Pigs Museum on Biscayne Bay
I was going to disregard Stuck on the Palmetto's skewered poll on the new Bay of Pigs Museum on Biscayne Bay. I think any idiot could see through it: "Should a Bay of Pigs Museum Be Built in Miami?" One would expect a "Yes" or "No" answer. But that would make it a fair poll, and pair polls are not the usage at SotP. The SotP poll has one "No" answer and two "Yes" answers intended to split the "Yes" vote. But wait: one of the "Yes" answers is actually a "No" in disguise: "Yes, but in a different location (than Biscayne Bay)," which is what both Rick and Alex want. When you skewer a poll like that you are certain to get the answer you want. I do it all the time — as a joke. But they are in deadly earnest.
Simply put: they object to the museum's proposed site because it is too choice a parcel of real estate to "waste" on a Bay of Pigs Museum. Yes, it is a radical idea to build a spectacular museum to commemorate an American defeat and betrayal, and such a clearcut and unequivocal betrayal and defeat. Both Castro and Kennedy's apologists (who are usually one and the same) certainly would wish it to be placed in some inconspicuous location, such as the present improvised museum occupies now, hidden away and forgotten except by the faithful, a metaphor for the thing itself. No, Little Havana is not the ideal location for the Bay of Pigs Museum. That would convey that it was just a "Cuban exile thing" which it absolutely was not. Nor is the Freedom Tower an appropriate locale for the museum, as Alex suggests. Why not, then, build the World War II Museum inside the Statue of Liberty? Because they convey two complimentary but distinct ideas: the Statue of Liberty and the Freedom Tower chronicle the immigrant/refugee experience in this country. The World War II Museum and the Bay of Pigs Museum commemorate the sacrifice made on the battlefield by men upholding the banner of liberty and civilization against the forces of tyranny and barbarism. There should be enough room on American soil for both a Statue of Liberty and a World War II Museum, just as there should be enough room in Miami for both a Freedom Tower and a Bay of Pigs Museum. Sadly, there has always existed a propensity among non-Cubans to marginalize and isolate our experience in this country as if it belonged only in some Cuban "ghetto" where everybody else could be immured from it.
Twenty years ago a veteran of the Bay of Pigs visited the JFK Presidential Library and Museum. He naturally looked for the exhibit on the Bay of Pigs, surely one of the seminal events in the Kennedy presidency. But guess what? There was no exhibit. Granted, it is rather difficult to accommodate the Bay of Pigs into a museum whose purpose is to deify the most disastrous president in U.S. history. More remarkably, no one before had seemed to mind or even notice its absence. The Cuban veteran asked specifically to see the Bay of Pigs flag which the survivors of the Brigade 2506 had presented to Kennedy at the Orange Bowl, where he had again lied to them when he promised that it would some day fly over a free Cuba. The flag, he was informed, was in storage, along with JFK's bubble gum that someone scrapped from his shoe and an empty box of his Cuban cigars (no, those were on display). It was then that the Brigade 2506 Association asked for the return of the flag, which the Kennedy Museum surrendered without regrets (glad, probably, to be rid of it). Of course, after their memory hole was exposed, the museum directors were obliged to find some corner of the Museum to remember Kennedy's fiasco.
Alex and others have visited the improvised museum and complained about the paucity of artifacts. Well, the survivors weren't allowed to take much out of Cuba except their skin and bones. However, 1200 men did not live and die without leaving some trace on this earth, and these mementos will be gathered for the new museum as will the oral testimony of the survivors. Their story will be told chiefly through photographs, as at most modern museums. But even if the only artifact in the new Bay of Pigs Museum were the flag spurned by the Kennedy Library then it would be worth building just to enshrine it till the day that it does fly over a free Cuba.
I do agree with Alex and others in one respect — scrap the garage. Build instead a Mausoleum for the veterans of the Bay of Pigs, where they can rest together till the day that their remains and their flag can be repatriated to a free Cuba.
The "Fiasco" that Wasn't a Fiasco
Arthur M. Schlesinger: The Devil in Mr. Kennedy
Simply put: they object to the museum's proposed site because it is too choice a parcel of real estate to "waste" on a Bay of Pigs Museum. Yes, it is a radical idea to build a spectacular museum to commemorate an American defeat and betrayal, and such a clearcut and unequivocal betrayal and defeat. Both Castro and Kennedy's apologists (who are usually one and the same) certainly would wish it to be placed in some inconspicuous location, such as the present improvised museum occupies now, hidden away and forgotten except by the faithful, a metaphor for the thing itself. No, Little Havana is not the ideal location for the Bay of Pigs Museum. That would convey that it was just a "Cuban exile thing" which it absolutely was not. Nor is the Freedom Tower an appropriate locale for the museum, as Alex suggests. Why not, then, build the World War II Museum inside the Statue of Liberty? Because they convey two complimentary but distinct ideas: the Statue of Liberty and the Freedom Tower chronicle the immigrant/refugee experience in this country. The World War II Museum and the Bay of Pigs Museum commemorate the sacrifice made on the battlefield by men upholding the banner of liberty and civilization against the forces of tyranny and barbarism. There should be enough room on American soil for both a Statue of Liberty and a World War II Museum, just as there should be enough room in Miami for both a Freedom Tower and a Bay of Pigs Museum. Sadly, there has always existed a propensity among non-Cubans to marginalize and isolate our experience in this country as if it belonged only in some Cuban "ghetto" where everybody else could be immured from it.
Twenty years ago a veteran of the Bay of Pigs visited the JFK Presidential Library and Museum. He naturally looked for the exhibit on the Bay of Pigs, surely one of the seminal events in the Kennedy presidency. But guess what? There was no exhibit. Granted, it is rather difficult to accommodate the Bay of Pigs into a museum whose purpose is to deify the most disastrous president in U.S. history. More remarkably, no one before had seemed to mind or even notice its absence. The Cuban veteran asked specifically to see the Bay of Pigs flag which the survivors of the Brigade 2506 had presented to Kennedy at the Orange Bowl, where he had again lied to them when he promised that it would some day fly over a free Cuba. The flag, he was informed, was in storage, along with JFK's bubble gum that someone scrapped from his shoe and an empty box of his Cuban cigars (no, those were on display). It was then that the Brigade 2506 Association asked for the return of the flag, which the Kennedy Museum surrendered without regrets (glad, probably, to be rid of it). Of course, after their memory hole was exposed, the museum directors were obliged to find some corner of the Museum to remember Kennedy's fiasco.
Alex and others have visited the improvised museum and complained about the paucity of artifacts. Well, the survivors weren't allowed to take much out of Cuba except their skin and bones. However, 1200 men did not live and die without leaving some trace on this earth, and these mementos will be gathered for the new museum as will the oral testimony of the survivors. Their story will be told chiefly through photographs, as at most modern museums. But even if the only artifact in the new Bay of Pigs Museum were the flag spurned by the Kennedy Library then it would be worth building just to enshrine it till the day that it does fly over a free Cuba.
I do agree with Alex and others in one respect — scrap the garage. Build instead a Mausoleum for the veterans of the Bay of Pigs, where they can rest together till the day that their remains and their flag can be repatriated to a free Cuba.
The "Fiasco" that Wasn't a Fiasco
Arthur M. Schlesinger: The Devil in Mr. Kennedy
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Henry Gómez: Elián's Return to Cuba Helped Elect George W. Bush and Saved Western Civilization In the Aftermath of 9/11, As Was God's Plan
In "Unintended Consequences," his tribute to 9/11 posted on Babalú, Henry Louis Gómez (he uses his full name only on "historically important" screeds), posits the original theory (we have to call it something) that it was God's divine plan to return Elián to Fidel Castro's crutches so that Cuban-Americans, spurred by this infamy, would provide George W. Bush with the extra 500 votes that he needed to win Florida and hence the 2000 presidential elections. According to Henry, God used Elián as an (expendable) vehicle to insure that Bush, not Al Gore, would be president on September 11, 2001.
Really? Couldn't God just send one of his earthly ministers to stuff 500 extra votes for Bush in the ballot boxes or hotwire one of the voting machines? Heck, He's God, isn't He? Couldn't He have ordained Bush's election without sacrificing an innocent boy in the bargain? Well, of course, God could have done anything. He could even have prevented 9/11. The Christian fundamentalists believe that He didn't stop it because it was His righteous judgment on America for its moral (read sexual) lapses. Henry is not so ambitious. He merely sees 9/11 as a God-provided occasion for George W. Bush to save America. And Bush couldn't have saved America unless Elián was first sacrificed on God's altar.
What Henry does not say is that he supported Elián's return to Cuba, which means that Henry is a Prophet, because he foresaw 9/11 and the necessity of sacrificing Elián in order that George W. Bush might be elected president seven months later and be able to save America on that faithful day.
Here is his whole deceitful and self-deceiving screed before it disappears from Babalú, as God will no doubt command the Prophet Henry to delete it; for it casts God as a child abuser and Henry as just an obedient servant doing his master's bidding. Perhaps God will silence Henry's tongue, smite him or beset him with hecatombs. Surely he is deserving of some punishment for penning this monstrosity of self-exculpation:
Unintended Consequences by Henry Louis Gomez
September 11, 2001 was a normal Tuesday morning for me. I’m not usually an early riser and this day was no different. I wasn’t feeling well and decided to stay in bed a while longer and call my office later to tell them that I might come in later in the day, if at all. At about 9:15 AM my phone rang, it was my boss and good friend Jose asking me where I was. I explained that I was in bed, under the weather. He told me to turn on the TV, that a plane had crashed into one of the towers at the World Trade Center and that they weren’t sure whether it was an accident or an act of terrorism.
I turned on the TV and watched the images of the burning building. Then tower 2 was struck and all of a sudden this wasn’t just an accident. It was the end of the world. Like everyone else, I watched events unfold and heard the reports from the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania.
Our country was facing a crisis and I was glad that the man at helm was George W. Bush. I remember thinking to myself that the Elian Gonzalez episode had not been in vain. At the time of the Elian affair, many felt that the boy had an unfulfilled destiny in the US. After all why had God spared his life when all who accompanied him were killed? But I believe that Elian being sent back to Cuba led directly to George W. Bush’s victory over Al Gore. A razor thin margin of 500 or so votes in Florida was the difference. A difference that may have not existed if many of us in south Florida had not made it a point to oppose the Democrats in that election.
To tell you the truth, my life has not changed all that much since 9/11. I wasn’t directly connected to any of those 2,996 who perished as a result of the attacks. My career has advanced; I live in a nicer house, etc. Of course the attacks changed my thinking and made me aware of the war that had been declared against western values. But for the families of those victims, life will never be the same. Working on the 2,996 project has been an incredible reminder of that fact. The course of our country’s history has been permanently changed. Hopefully our future leaders will keep our collective 9/11 experience in mind as the years pass. I know I will.
Question to the Prophet Henry: Was it God's divine plan also to have Val boot me from Babalú so that I could make Val's life miserable and yours? I think so.
POSTSCRIPT:
The Babalunians couldn't delete Henry's post because I had already reprinted it here, so they instead eliminated it from Babalú's front page (along with everybody else's recollections of 9/11) and consigned it to a link in a one-line post entitled "A Solemn Anniversary." They are wily. I will give them that.
Really? Couldn't God just send one of his earthly ministers to stuff 500 extra votes for Bush in the ballot boxes or hotwire one of the voting machines? Heck, He's God, isn't He? Couldn't He have ordained Bush's election without sacrificing an innocent boy in the bargain? Well, of course, God could have done anything. He could even have prevented 9/11. The Christian fundamentalists believe that He didn't stop it because it was His righteous judgment on America for its moral (read sexual) lapses. Henry is not so ambitious. He merely sees 9/11 as a God-provided occasion for George W. Bush to save America. And Bush couldn't have saved America unless Elián was first sacrificed on God's altar.
What Henry does not say is that he supported Elián's return to Cuba, which means that Henry is a Prophet, because he foresaw 9/11 and the necessity of sacrificing Elián in order that George W. Bush might be elected president seven months later and be able to save America on that faithful day.
Here is his whole deceitful and self-deceiving screed before it disappears from Babalú, as God will no doubt command the Prophet Henry to delete it; for it casts God as a child abuser and Henry as just an obedient servant doing his master's bidding. Perhaps God will silence Henry's tongue, smite him or beset him with hecatombs. Surely he is deserving of some punishment for penning this monstrosity of self-exculpation:
September 11, 2001 was a normal Tuesday morning for me. I’m not usually an early riser and this day was no different. I wasn’t feeling well and decided to stay in bed a while longer and call my office later to tell them that I might come in later in the day, if at all. At about 9:15 AM my phone rang, it was my boss and good friend Jose asking me where I was. I explained that I was in bed, under the weather. He told me to turn on the TV, that a plane had crashed into one of the towers at the World Trade Center and that they weren’t sure whether it was an accident or an act of terrorism.
I turned on the TV and watched the images of the burning building. Then tower 2 was struck and all of a sudden this wasn’t just an accident. It was the end of the world. Like everyone else, I watched events unfold and heard the reports from the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania.
Our country was facing a crisis and I was glad that the man at helm was George W. Bush. I remember thinking to myself that the Elian Gonzalez episode had not been in vain. At the time of the Elian affair, many felt that the boy had an unfulfilled destiny in the US. After all why had God spared his life when all who accompanied him were killed? But I believe that Elian being sent back to Cuba led directly to George W. Bush’s victory over Al Gore. A razor thin margin of 500 or so votes in Florida was the difference. A difference that may have not existed if many of us in south Florida had not made it a point to oppose the Democrats in that election.
To tell you the truth, my life has not changed all that much since 9/11. I wasn’t directly connected to any of those 2,996 who perished as a result of the attacks. My career has advanced; I live in a nicer house, etc. Of course the attacks changed my thinking and made me aware of the war that had been declared against western values. But for the families of those victims, life will never be the same. Working on the 2,996 project has been an incredible reminder of that fact. The course of our country’s history has been permanently changed. Hopefully our future leaders will keep our collective 9/11 experience in mind as the years pass. I know I will.
Question to the Prophet Henry: Was it God's divine plan also to have Val boot me from Babalú so that I could make Val's life miserable and yours? I think so.
POSTSCRIPT:
The Babalunians couldn't delete Henry's post because I had already reprinted it here, so they instead eliminated it from Babalú's front page (along with everybody else's recollections of 9/11) and consigned it to a link in a one-line post entitled "A Solemn Anniversary." They are wily. I will give them that.
Censorship and Class at Babalú on September 11, 2005
Only at Babalú would they commemorate American freedom by practicing censorship on September 11. In 2005, Val Prieto and George Moneo deleted the original post and thread honoring the victims of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and substituted it with an innocuous poem because they disapproved of how the discussion was evolving in the first post. Val, apparently, wanted Babalú to reflect his own opinions not just in the posts he and others wrote but also in the corresponding threads; that is, to control output and imput. Readers could opine on his blog only when they followed his lead. If they deviated to a more relevant discussion, Val and his inhouse thugs would fall on them and try to wrest the discussion from them. If they could not steer it in the direction they wanted it to go, they would them resort to banning or if there were just too many voices to ban they would delete the entire thread.
This is exactly what the Babalunians did on September 11, 2005 when I brought up the question of compensation to the survivors of the attack, noting that the stockbrokers' families had received millions from the government and the children of the cleaning women just thousands. The government didn't have to give the stockbroker's or janitor's children anything. But in a bail-out of the insurance companies (now that's patriotic), it agreed to assume the financial responsibility of indemnifying the survivors. Having made that commitment, the government should have treated all survivors alike by holding the lives of all victims equally valuable. But it did not. As I noted then, "one of the ideals on which this country was founded was that all human life is sacred and that one human being is not intrinsically more valuable than another. A human is a human is a human. A death is a death is a death. In the World Trade Center there were no 'dollar deaths' and no 'penny deaths.' Everyone died the same. But everyone was not treated the same. There is no better day to remember this than today."
Egalitarianism is anathema to the Babalunians, though most of them are closer in class to the cleaning ladies than to the stockbrokers.
I, of course, remonstrated with Val, who first threatened to delete the post, and George Moneo, who actually did. It was not a pleasant exchange. They considered my remarks "disrespectful to the dead" as if the dead would consider compensating their survivors fairly to be "disrespectful" or a tangential issue on this day.
But I understood that I was dealing with proles who fancied themselves honorary stockbrokers, and who would, of course, protect the interests of their adoptive class more even than the privileged classes would. It is "right-thinking" tools like Val and George who are the backbone (or, rather, tailbone) of American capitalism. They accept without question the position that the rich are not just richer than the poor but more valuable to society, and having accepted that dubious notion, they can accept also the notion that a stockbroker's son is worthier of government largesse than is the son of a cleaning lady.
In response to their insufferable elitism and willingness to resort to censorship to protect interests that didn't even touch them, I stopped commenting on Babalú for the next 1½ years. I should have stopped for good.
Not imagining then that the Val would actually delete a post for political reasons, I had not bothered to save it. Thus I cannot offer a complete transcript of it. Fortunately, I am in the habit of saving all my comments before posting them. So I at least have a one-sided record from which I can partially reconstruct the deleted post. I will be publishing it throughout the day in honor of the victims of 9/11. If they died to protect the freedoms that we all enjoy today, then there is no better way to honor their memory than by practicing those freedoms without fear or censure. And certainly without censorship.
POSTSCRIPT:
I continue to exert my powerful influence on Babalú. Val has just restored the 9/11 post that he deleted 2 years ago. This is a very simple procedure. All you have to do is re-publish it: the original post is always preserved in "Drafts" even after unpublished ("deleted").
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/002213.html
This is exactly what the Babalunians did on September 11, 2005 when I brought up the question of compensation to the survivors of the attack, noting that the stockbrokers' families had received millions from the government and the children of the cleaning women just thousands. The government didn't have to give the stockbroker's or janitor's children anything. But in a bail-out of the insurance companies (now that's patriotic), it agreed to assume the financial responsibility of indemnifying the survivors. Having made that commitment, the government should have treated all survivors alike by holding the lives of all victims equally valuable. But it did not. As I noted then, "one of the ideals on which this country was founded was that all human life is sacred and that one human being is not intrinsically more valuable than another. A human is a human is a human. A death is a death is a death. In the World Trade Center there were no 'dollar deaths' and no 'penny deaths.' Everyone died the same. But everyone was not treated the same. There is no better day to remember this than today."
Egalitarianism is anathema to the Babalunians, though most of them are closer in class to the cleaning ladies than to the stockbrokers.
I, of course, remonstrated with Val, who first threatened to delete the post, and George Moneo, who actually did. It was not a pleasant exchange. They considered my remarks "disrespectful to the dead" as if the dead would consider compensating their survivors fairly to be "disrespectful" or a tangential issue on this day.
But I understood that I was dealing with proles who fancied themselves honorary stockbrokers, and who would, of course, protect the interests of their adoptive class more even than the privileged classes would. It is "right-thinking" tools like Val and George who are the backbone (or, rather, tailbone) of American capitalism. They accept without question the position that the rich are not just richer than the poor but more valuable to society, and having accepted that dubious notion, they can accept also the notion that a stockbroker's son is worthier of government largesse than is the son of a cleaning lady.
In response to their insufferable elitism and willingness to resort to censorship to protect interests that didn't even touch them, I stopped commenting on Babalú for the next 1½ years. I should have stopped for good.
Not imagining then that the Val would actually delete a post for political reasons, I had not bothered to save it. Thus I cannot offer a complete transcript of it. Fortunately, I am in the habit of saving all my comments before posting them. So I at least have a one-sided record from which I can partially reconstruct the deleted post. I will be publishing it throughout the day in honor of the victims of 9/11. If they died to protect the freedoms that we all enjoy today, then there is no better way to honor their memory than by practicing those freedoms without fear or censure. And certainly without censorship.
POSTSCRIPT:
I continue to exert my powerful influence on Babalú. Val has just restored the 9/11 post that he deleted 2 years ago. This is a very simple procedure. All you have to do is re-publish it: the original post is always preserved in "Drafts" even after unpublished ("deleted").
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/002213.html
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Saga of Babalú's Henry Gómez & Alex of SotP
Has fatherhood awakened in Henry Gómez long-muted cords of empathy for the plight of the abused little Cuban girl who had previously elicited from him only indifference if not disdain? Has he finally realized that her case is not and never was a plot hatched by The Miami Herald to discredit Cuban-Americans? Is he finally able to see that this case is about an abused little girl, abused by her own parents and the regime to avenge itself on her foster father Joe Cubas? We know as everybody does that Henry is rash to make judgments and slow to revise his first (erroneous) impressions. It is always unfortunate when men carve their first impressions in stone because it is much harder to erase them later than to let them stand. But Henry appears, at least, to be trying to make the effort lately. A bigger man would avow his error and radically correct his course. But this, of course, we cannot expect from Henry.
But has Henry caught on at long last? Yes and no. He has never uttered a word of sympathy for Elenita. He has in fact refused to on repeated occasions. That has not changed. What has changed is that he's taken on the villains in this case (two of them at least), Ira Kurzban and Magda Montiel-Davis, and realized that there can be no semblance of justice for anyone in a case where they are involved in representation of Fidel Castro's interests.
Henry has taken on Alex of South of the Palmetto for defending the indefensible — the honesty and integrity of that felonious duo and their napoleonic bully of a client (Rafael Izquierdo, not his master). The Castro-orquestrated conspiracy to obstruct justice unfolding in Judge Jeri B. Cohen's classroom, carried out by these legal miscreants, no one but the most deluded Castroite could fail to see or condemn. Is Alex then a Castroite? No, I'm sure he's not. But he is the product (victim) of a Castroite education and his outlook on the world is framed in the terms that his Marxist professors taught him. Many have been able to free themselves from those bounds; many, in fact, rejected them from the first (Killcastro & Charlie Bravo). Alex's intelligence might have been expected to help him liberate himself from such tutelage, but it has not. He still sees his childhood in Castro's Cuba as idyllic and there is no shaking him in that conviction (I know, because I tried hundreds of times before finally giving up). His childhood in Cuba consisted very much of slave labor for the state, setting the example for other youth which a mid-level Castro official's son is expected to (not so for those at the highest level). Alex told the story once that his father forbade him to be friends with another youth because he was a "gusano." Such a thing, in his peculiar cosmology, is compatible with an idyllic childhood. But just as a white child who was forbidden by his parents from playing with black children would have his perspectives on life seriously compromised, so too must a child raised in Cuba whose father sanctions, indeed, orders the same kind of conduct, based not on color but ideas: "seditious" ideas such as hatred of tyranny and love of freedom. As with sexual abuse, a child thus victimized can be expected to carry those scars all his life, and, what is worse, victimize others himself. This explains why Alex favored the return of Elián to Cuba and now favors the return of Elenita as well.
The reason that Henry once favored Elián's return was because of the influence that Alex once exerted on him. He obviously doesn't exert such influence now because even Henry's affection for him does not trump his revulsion for Magda Montiel-Davis. If Elián's case had ever been heard in an American courtroom with such a cast of characters, perhaps he might have shaken free of Alex's influence and seen the light much sooner.
Henry, who was born in this country and calls himself an "American-Cuban," has the common American bias of expecting justice in a courtroom, which no one raised in Cuba would ever expect. This is why Henry declared that "This case is dirty as hell," and begged Alex in the comments section of SotP: "Please Alex, I know we disagree on a lot of things but you'd have to be willingly blind to not see the strings that are being pulled from Havana on this one."
No, Henry, not willingly blind but unwillingly blind. Alex is a product of his education just as you are a product of yours. In one respect this has been beneficial to him: it made Alex a Cuban nationalist, as opposed to Henry and Val, who are practically annexationists. Unfortunately, however, though it preached ideas such as nationalism which in fact it did not itself practice, the Castro regime also inculcated into Alex the mantra of Vamos a Cuba: there is no difference between life in Cuba and life in the U.S. This is why Alex feels comfortable sending Elián and Elenita back to Cuba. Of course, Alex also confessed that he would never do that to his own daughter, and there is no contradiction there, either. That is also how the elite think and behave in Cuba: privilege for their children and misery for everybody else's.
But this means progress, at least on Henry's part. Now Henry recognizes that the strings are not being pulled by The Miami Herald but by the Castro regime. If The Herald had not aggressively covered Elenita's case when Henry was saying that it was a humbug, he would not be able to say now, as he has said, that her mother and father "are crazy as a bedbug."
OK, Henry, one last try: the parents are crazy; their lawyers are corrupt; Castro is pulling all the strings from Havana — all this you have already admitted.
Are you willing to acknowledge now that you were too obsessed with the reputation of Cuban-Americans and too indifferent or hostile to the plight of the neediest Cuban-American among us?
Do you now support awarding custody to the only other people besides her brother who have ever loved this abused little girl — Joe and María Cubas?
Just one little step more, Henry.
But has Henry caught on at long last? Yes and no. He has never uttered a word of sympathy for Elenita. He has in fact refused to on repeated occasions. That has not changed. What has changed is that he's taken on the villains in this case (two of them at least), Ira Kurzban and Magda Montiel-Davis, and realized that there can be no semblance of justice for anyone in a case where they are involved in representation of Fidel Castro's interests.
Henry has taken on Alex of South of the Palmetto for defending the indefensible — the honesty and integrity of that felonious duo and their napoleonic bully of a client (Rafael Izquierdo, not his master). The Castro-orquestrated conspiracy to obstruct justice unfolding in Judge Jeri B. Cohen's classroom, carried out by these legal miscreants, no one but the most deluded Castroite could fail to see or condemn. Is Alex then a Castroite? No, I'm sure he's not. But he is the product (victim) of a Castroite education and his outlook on the world is framed in the terms that his Marxist professors taught him. Many have been able to free themselves from those bounds; many, in fact, rejected them from the first (Killcastro & Charlie Bravo). Alex's intelligence might have been expected to help him liberate himself from such tutelage, but it has not. He still sees his childhood in Castro's Cuba as idyllic and there is no shaking him in that conviction (I know, because I tried hundreds of times before finally giving up). His childhood in Cuba consisted very much of slave labor for the state, setting the example for other youth which a mid-level Castro official's son is expected to (not so for those at the highest level). Alex told the story once that his father forbade him to be friends with another youth because he was a "gusano." Such a thing, in his peculiar cosmology, is compatible with an idyllic childhood. But just as a white child who was forbidden by his parents from playing with black children would have his perspectives on life seriously compromised, so too must a child raised in Cuba whose father sanctions, indeed, orders the same kind of conduct, based not on color but ideas: "seditious" ideas such as hatred of tyranny and love of freedom. As with sexual abuse, a child thus victimized can be expected to carry those scars all his life, and, what is worse, victimize others himself. This explains why Alex favored the return of Elián to Cuba and now favors the return of Elenita as well.
The reason that Henry once favored Elián's return was because of the influence that Alex once exerted on him. He obviously doesn't exert such influence now because even Henry's affection for him does not trump his revulsion for Magda Montiel-Davis. If Elián's case had ever been heard in an American courtroom with such a cast of characters, perhaps he might have shaken free of Alex's influence and seen the light much sooner.
Henry, who was born in this country and calls himself an "American-Cuban," has the common American bias of expecting justice in a courtroom, which no one raised in Cuba would ever expect. This is why Henry declared that "This case is dirty as hell," and begged Alex in the comments section of SotP: "Please Alex, I know we disagree on a lot of things but you'd have to be willingly blind to not see the strings that are being pulled from Havana on this one."
No, Henry, not willingly blind but unwillingly blind. Alex is a product of his education just as you are a product of yours. In one respect this has been beneficial to him: it made Alex a Cuban nationalist, as opposed to Henry and Val, who are practically annexationists. Unfortunately, however, though it preached ideas such as nationalism which in fact it did not itself practice, the Castro regime also inculcated into Alex the mantra of Vamos a Cuba: there is no difference between life in Cuba and life in the U.S. This is why Alex feels comfortable sending Elián and Elenita back to Cuba. Of course, Alex also confessed that he would never do that to his own daughter, and there is no contradiction there, either. That is also how the elite think and behave in Cuba: privilege for their children and misery for everybody else's.
But this means progress, at least on Henry's part. Now Henry recognizes that the strings are not being pulled by The Miami Herald but by the Castro regime. If The Herald had not aggressively covered Elenita's case when Henry was saying that it was a humbug, he would not be able to say now, as he has said, that her mother and father "are crazy as a bedbug."
OK, Henry, one last try: the parents are crazy; their lawyers are corrupt; Castro is pulling all the strings from Havana — all this you have already admitted.
Are you willing to acknowledge now that you were too obsessed with the reputation of Cuban-Americans and too indifferent or hostile to the plight of the neediest Cuban-American among us?
Do you now support awarding custody to the only other people besides her brother who have ever loved this abused little girl — Joe and María Cubas?
Just one little step more, Henry.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Are You Sure, Henry?
The only person who could produce uglier offspring with Bill Clinton than Hillary did is probably Ana Menéndez. — Henry Gómez @ Babalú, Sept. 9
Ana Menéndez
or
Madga Montiel-Davis
Elián's Father was "Adopted" Too
Rafael Izquierdo is hoping for a deathbed adoption by Fidel. This photo of Juan Miguel González and Fidel must be a source of inspiration and encouragement to him.
We know which is the more evil but we can't decide which is the most indecorous — to pimp your infant child to Fidel Castro or to pimp yourself.
We know which is the more evil but we can't decide which is the most indecorous — to pimp your infant child to Fidel Castro or to pimp yourself.
El Bitongo
Rafael Izquierdo proudly holds up a letter to his ex(?)-mistress which she testified was a forgery foisted on her by Magda Montiel-Davis after her own lawyer advised her that she would be guilty of perjury if she asserted in court that she had ever received it or any other communication from Izquierdo inquiring about their daughter when in fact she had not.
Looking at his expression we must really wonder who is the crazier — mother or father.
Looking at his expression we must really wonder who is the crazier — mother or father.
The "It" Girl
Forget about Global Warming. If all women looked like Magda Montiel-Davis, earth would be a giant prison and extinction one generation away.
Call it "Global Cooling."
Call it "Global Cooling."
Saturday, September 8, 2007
The Guajiro Hamlet: Rafael Izquiedo
"To abandon child #1, or to abandon child #2, that is the question..."
"To stay with the wife in Cuba, or take off with the mistress to the U.S., that is also the question..."
On the winess stand, Rafael Izquierdo described himself as a "guajiro." Whatever Izquierdo is, he is no guajiro. The guajiro is known for his noble character, unsurpassed common sense and boundless generosity, but, above all, for the kind of wisdom that all the book-learning in the world will never give you if you weren't born with it in the first place. The Cuban guajiro was the salt and bread of our land. In our country, at one time, to say "guajiro" was the same as to say a man of his word, a man of honor.
Yes, the guajiro might have a dozen women and twice as many children scattered in the countryside, but he always saw to it that the women and his children never went hungry. He would no more sell a child of his to another man than he would cut off and sell his own hand. Rafael Izquierdo, on the other hand, proposes to sell his own daughter to the greatest mass murderer in Cuban history for a few extra spoons of chícharos in his bowl.
I have known guajiros all my life; and you, Izquierdo, are no guajiro.
You are, however, a faithful copy of Fidel's "New Man" patterned on "Che" Guevara, who was simply the old Lucifer in a red beret. To you truth and falsehood are relative terms, relative, that is, to your immediate needs or appetites. Honor to you is the procrastination of fools. You are the culmination of "Che" Guevara's philosophy as well as the ultimate resolution of every revolution: the effective killing machine that also devours its own offspring.
You have betrayed your infant daughter in every way imaginable. You counselled her mother to abort her before she was born and wanted no part of her afterwards. You shut your eyes and closed your ears to the abuse that she endured in Cuba at the hands of her schizophrenic mother, your mistress. When your bedmate won a visa in the immigration lottery, you rushed to apply for a visa yourself, hoping to ride her coattails to the U.S. and ready to abandon your legal spouse and your other daughter in Cuba. When this wasn't possible you broke with your mistress and signed custody of Elenita over to her so she could take her to the United States, knowing, as you did, of her mental history and history of child abuse. Once she was out of sight you were more than glad to put her out of mind: no letters, no birthday cards, no telephone calls — you might as well have buried her, and, in a way, you did.
When your former mistress tried to commit suicide with a kitchen knife, in the presence of your daughter, and her 11-year-old son saved her life and very likely his baby sister's as well, where were you? Enwrapped in a web of concubinage in Cuba, completely indifferent to the fate of your daughter. And what did you do when her son called you on the phone to inform you of what had happened and begged you, in tears, to save them? What did you do, execrable man? Nothing. You did nothing. Instead of applying for a visa to retrieve your daughter — and then no one was stopping you — you chose to do nothing for 7 months. Indeed, you would have continued to do nothing — which you are apparently very good at — if Castro had not ordered you to assert your parental rights in the U.S., rights which, incidentally, don't exist in Cuba.
Castro's motive for doing so was that Joe Cubas and his wife had in the interim sought to adopt Elena Pérez's children. Communist propaganda portrays Posada Carriles as the Castro regime's "Most Wanted" fugitive. This is, of course, a lie. It is Joe Cubas whom Castro hates above all other Cuban exiles because Cubas has actually injured him personally, which Posada never did. Joe Cubas has shepherded to freedom Castro's most prized slaves, his stable of athletes and source of his greatest pride. That can never be forgiven, and by wresting these children whom Joe Cubas loves as his own from him, Castro thought that he could at last have his revenge — a warped kind of poetic "justice," the slaver stealing the abolitionist's children.
The boy's father would have no part of this. He, too, had abandoned his son but refused to make slavery his only legacy to him. He agreed to his son's adoption by the Cubases. You, who had also abandoned your daughter, were persuaded that she was your meal ticket, literally. As Castro eats from the sweat of other men's brows, you wanted to feed from the tears cascading down your daughter's face. You had the example of Elián's father to encourage all your hopes and pretensions. Had Castro not named Juan González a "Hero of the Republic" and given him a seat in the Assembly of People's Power? Why should you expect less for your daughter? The present and future emoluments promised to you must have been great indeed to forsake freedom for you and your family in America. And so you agreed to become the errand boy in this sordid history of revenge with your own daughter as the prize.
On the witness stand — or "battlefield," to you — you revealed yourself to be an angry little man, the mirror image of Juan González, Elián's father, with some refinements; for example, you were instructed not to threaten to take back your daughter with firearms. You resemble him in many other ways — Juan, too, beat his wife savagely and neglected his son. And much worse. But his peccadillos were concealed because Clinton and Reno preempted the judicial process before Juan González was exposed as the monster he is. You had no such luck. You stand before the world for what you are — a liar; a perjurer; a fabricator of evidence guilty of obstruction of justice; an abuser and enabler of abuse, the worst father and worst man that our country has offered to the world as a paradigm since Juan González.
Enjoy your celebrity. There will be no prizes for you when you return home empty-handed, just that profound sense of self-loathing which you are already exhibiting and which you richly deserve to carry inside you for the rest of your worthless life as a failed stooge of tyranny.
"To stay with the wife in Cuba, or take off with the mistress to the U.S., that is also the question..."
On the winess stand, Rafael Izquierdo described himself as a "guajiro." Whatever Izquierdo is, he is no guajiro. The guajiro is known for his noble character, unsurpassed common sense and boundless generosity, but, above all, for the kind of wisdom that all the book-learning in the world will never give you if you weren't born with it in the first place. The Cuban guajiro was the salt and bread of our land. In our country, at one time, to say "guajiro" was the same as to say a man of his word, a man of honor.
Yes, the guajiro might have a dozen women and twice as many children scattered in the countryside, but he always saw to it that the women and his children never went hungry. He would no more sell a child of his to another man than he would cut off and sell his own hand. Rafael Izquierdo, on the other hand, proposes to sell his own daughter to the greatest mass murderer in Cuban history for a few extra spoons of chícharos in his bowl.
I have known guajiros all my life; and you, Izquierdo, are no guajiro.
You are, however, a faithful copy of Fidel's "New Man" patterned on "Che" Guevara, who was simply the old Lucifer in a red beret. To you truth and falsehood are relative terms, relative, that is, to your immediate needs or appetites. Honor to you is the procrastination of fools. You are the culmination of "Che" Guevara's philosophy as well as the ultimate resolution of every revolution: the effective killing machine that also devours its own offspring.
You have betrayed your infant daughter in every way imaginable. You counselled her mother to abort her before she was born and wanted no part of her afterwards. You shut your eyes and closed your ears to the abuse that she endured in Cuba at the hands of her schizophrenic mother, your mistress. When your bedmate won a visa in the immigration lottery, you rushed to apply for a visa yourself, hoping to ride her coattails to the U.S. and ready to abandon your legal spouse and your other daughter in Cuba. When this wasn't possible you broke with your mistress and signed custody of Elenita over to her so she could take her to the United States, knowing, as you did, of her mental history and history of child abuse. Once she was out of sight you were more than glad to put her out of mind: no letters, no birthday cards, no telephone calls — you might as well have buried her, and, in a way, you did.
When your former mistress tried to commit suicide with a kitchen knife, in the presence of your daughter, and her 11-year-old son saved her life and very likely his baby sister's as well, where were you? Enwrapped in a web of concubinage in Cuba, completely indifferent to the fate of your daughter. And what did you do when her son called you on the phone to inform you of what had happened and begged you, in tears, to save them? What did you do, execrable man? Nothing. You did nothing. Instead of applying for a visa to retrieve your daughter — and then no one was stopping you — you chose to do nothing for 7 months. Indeed, you would have continued to do nothing — which you are apparently very good at — if Castro had not ordered you to assert your parental rights in the U.S., rights which, incidentally, don't exist in Cuba.
Castro's motive for doing so was that Joe Cubas and his wife had in the interim sought to adopt Elena Pérez's children. Communist propaganda portrays Posada Carriles as the Castro regime's "Most Wanted" fugitive. This is, of course, a lie. It is Joe Cubas whom Castro hates above all other Cuban exiles because Cubas has actually injured him personally, which Posada never did. Joe Cubas has shepherded to freedom Castro's most prized slaves, his stable of athletes and source of his greatest pride. That can never be forgiven, and by wresting these children whom Joe Cubas loves as his own from him, Castro thought that he could at last have his revenge — a warped kind of poetic "justice," the slaver stealing the abolitionist's children.
The boy's father would have no part of this. He, too, had abandoned his son but refused to make slavery his only legacy to him. He agreed to his son's adoption by the Cubases. You, who had also abandoned your daughter, were persuaded that she was your meal ticket, literally. As Castro eats from the sweat of other men's brows, you wanted to feed from the tears cascading down your daughter's face. You had the example of Elián's father to encourage all your hopes and pretensions. Had Castro not named Juan González a "Hero of the Republic" and given him a seat in the Assembly of People's Power? Why should you expect less for your daughter? The present and future emoluments promised to you must have been great indeed to forsake freedom for you and your family in America. And so you agreed to become the errand boy in this sordid history of revenge with your own daughter as the prize.
On the witness stand — or "battlefield," to you — you revealed yourself to be an angry little man, the mirror image of Juan González, Elián's father, with some refinements; for example, you were instructed not to threaten to take back your daughter with firearms. You resemble him in many other ways — Juan, too, beat his wife savagely and neglected his son. And much worse. But his peccadillos were concealed because Clinton and Reno preempted the judicial process before Juan González was exposed as the monster he is. You had no such luck. You stand before the world for what you are — a liar; a perjurer; a fabricator of evidence guilty of obstruction of justice; an abuser and enabler of abuse, the worst father and worst man that our country has offered to the world as a paradigm since Juan González.
Enjoy your celebrity. There will be no prizes for you when you return home empty-handed, just that profound sense of self-loathing which you are already exhibiting and which you richly deserve to carry inside you for the rest of your worthless life as a failed stooge of tyranny.
Henry Gómez Feels Compassionate Today
But not for the abused 4-year-old Elenita.
Henry Gómez is feeling sorry for Oscar Corral today.
Why?
They are both Belén alumni, and might have actually met at the school if Henry had been left back another year.
Now, in Corral's disgrace, the old school ties bind them again. The past is forgotten. The frustrated journalist and the imploded journalist have more in common than not.
So, today, the first anniversary of the Martí Moonlighters story, the editor of Herald Watch says nary a word about it. Henry's last post there, on August 25, was a gripe about the Belén football team not receiving fair coverage from The Miami Herald.
I am sure that if Oscar were demoted to high school sports features writer he would do right by their alma mater unless Castro harbors a vendetta against the reincarnation of Belén.
Frankly, after producing Castro, I don't know why the school was resurrected in exile.
Oscar and Henry hardly justify such misplaced nostalgia.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
POSTSCRIPT:
It's satisfying to see that I can still make Henry do whatever I want. He did put up a post at Herald Watch commemorating the anniversary of the original Martí Moonlighters article and a trailer at Babalú announcing it. But the wily Henry changed the time of his post and trailer to make it appear as if he had written and published it before my rebuke and not as a response to it. Henry obviously doesn't know that I follow his tracks closely. Such a ruse, of course, is highly characteristic of him and Babalú in general.
Henry Gómez is feeling sorry for Oscar Corral today.
Why?
They are both Belén alumni, and might have actually met at the school if Henry had been left back another year.
Now, in Corral's disgrace, the old school ties bind them again. The past is forgotten. The frustrated journalist and the imploded journalist have more in common than not.
So, today, the first anniversary of the Martí Moonlighters story, the editor of Herald Watch says nary a word about it. Henry's last post there, on August 25, was a gripe about the Belén football team not receiving fair coverage from The Miami Herald.
I am sure that if Oscar were demoted to high school sports features writer he would do right by their alma mater unless Castro harbors a vendetta against the reincarnation of Belén.
Frankly, after producing Castro, I don't know why the school was resurrected in exile.
Oscar and Henry hardly justify such misplaced nostalgia.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
POSTSCRIPT:
It's satisfying to see that I can still make Henry do whatever I want. He did put up a post at Herald Watch commemorating the anniversary of the original Martí Moonlighters article and a trailer at Babalú announcing it. But the wily Henry changed the time of his post and trailer to make it appear as if he had written and published it before my rebuke and not as a response to it. Henry obviously doesn't know that I follow his tracks closely. Such a ruse, of course, is highly characteristic of him and Babalú in general.
Is Oscar Corral In Cabaiguán, Cuba?
Rafael Izquierdo is losing the custody case in Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen's courtroom. She may still rule for him as she always intended to do, but a strong and unshakable foundation has been laid for an appeal, thanks to the mother and the father's self-confessed perjury, conspiracy to fabricate evidence, obstruction of justice and monumental contempt of court. In fact, they and their lawyers have pretty much committed every crime that can be committed in a courtroom. The Miami Herald, always willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that Castro always comes out on top, has sent an unnamed reporter to Izquierdo's hometown of Cabaiguán to tells its readers the "real story" about Judge Cohen's pampered pet who should now be in custody and awaiting trial for the aforementioned crimes, to which he and his ex-girlfriend, and they alone, enjoy immunity from prosecution in this country.
As is The Herald's longstanding policy, it does not identify its "Man in Cabaiguán," who is repporting clandestinely because The Herald is not authorized by the Castro regime to report from Cuba. Of course, that is only a formality. The Castro regime probably made every accommodation for The Herald reporter, and the greatest accommodation of all, looking the other way at this charade. The DGI certainly knows more about The Herald's "embedded" journalist than The Herald does. In fact, his dossier is probably heavy with visuals of the kind that could compromise his reputation and ruin his career. In Cuba, of course, the police wouldn't stop a Corral and Yamilet from getting together; it would just film and record the proceedings and keep everything quiet — for a price, of course.
Are we insinuating that Oscar Corral is The Herald reporter on assignment in Cabaiguán, Cuba? No, we don't think so, though the wooden houses in Cabaiguán are lined with cork, and, we suspect, wherever Oscar is, his walls are lined with cork, too. [Oh, that was nasty; but today is the first anniversary of Corral's "Martí Moonlighters" story, so a little nastiness is certainly coming to his debauched self today].
The Izquierdo clan in Cabaiguán has been instructed not to speak to foreign reporters, and has challenged them to produce their credentials when inopportuned with questions and even threatened to denounce them to the authorities. Well, we certainly can't expect any irregular behavior from them: no grandmothers grabbing at their grandchildren's crotches and such.
Their neighbors have been told to assert when questioned by strangers that "This case isn't at all like Elián's." Then, in the same breath, they will repeat what Elena Pérez has said dozens of times on and off the witness stand: "Blood ties are sacred."
Sacred to whom? Certainly not God. He placed His only begotten son in the custody of a carpenter who was no relation to Him to be raised as the carpenter's son. God understood that He really couldn't raise his son on earth as God. Would that Rafael Izquierdo understood or cared that he too can't raise his own daughter in Cuba as his daughter, since she, like Elián, would belong to the state, and not just theoretically as all Cuban children do, but as Elián does for a fact and as Elenita will also if returned to Cuba.
Are blood ties "sacred" to the state? The Cuban state does not recognize paternal rights based on blood or anything else. It alone is the sole guardian of Cuba's children with the right to supercede the parents' authority in all matters pertaining to their children. It can't exert that "right" every day and every minute over every Cuban child, no does it need to; but it will certainly micromanage every second of Elenita's life in Cuba, as it has Elián's for the last 7 years. This will no doubt mean some material comforts for her and her family not enjoyed by ordinary Cubans, but these will be offset by the indignity of being raised in a glass tube, and, in effect, spending the rest of her childhood under house arrest for as long as anybody remembers her name or story. (For Elián this is a life sentence).
When, then, is blood "sacred" in Cuba? The answer must be that blood is "sacred" only when a father is being used as an instrument for the re-enslavement of his offspring. Then "blood" serves a purpose: the interests of the State: the interests of Castro. It is those interests — none other — that The Miami Herald's reporter in Cabaiguán is protecting, as usual.
As is The Herald's longstanding policy, it does not identify its "Man in Cabaiguán," who is repporting clandestinely because The Herald is not authorized by the Castro regime to report from Cuba. Of course, that is only a formality. The Castro regime probably made every accommodation for The Herald reporter, and the greatest accommodation of all, looking the other way at this charade. The DGI certainly knows more about The Herald's "embedded" journalist than The Herald does. In fact, his dossier is probably heavy with visuals of the kind that could compromise his reputation and ruin his career. In Cuba, of course, the police wouldn't stop a Corral and Yamilet from getting together; it would just film and record the proceedings and keep everything quiet — for a price, of course.
Are we insinuating that Oscar Corral is The Herald reporter on assignment in Cabaiguán, Cuba? No, we don't think so, though the wooden houses in Cabaiguán are lined with cork, and, we suspect, wherever Oscar is, his walls are lined with cork, too. [Oh, that was nasty; but today is the first anniversary of Corral's "Martí Moonlighters" story, so a little nastiness is certainly coming to his debauched self today].
The Izquierdo clan in Cabaiguán has been instructed not to speak to foreign reporters, and has challenged them to produce their credentials when inopportuned with questions and even threatened to denounce them to the authorities. Well, we certainly can't expect any irregular behavior from them: no grandmothers grabbing at their grandchildren's crotches and such.
Their neighbors have been told to assert when questioned by strangers that "This case isn't at all like Elián's." Then, in the same breath, they will repeat what Elena Pérez has said dozens of times on and off the witness stand: "Blood ties are sacred."
Sacred to whom? Certainly not God. He placed His only begotten son in the custody of a carpenter who was no relation to Him to be raised as the carpenter's son. God understood that He really couldn't raise his son on earth as God. Would that Rafael Izquierdo understood or cared that he too can't raise his own daughter in Cuba as his daughter, since she, like Elián, would belong to the state, and not just theoretically as all Cuban children do, but as Elián does for a fact and as Elenita will also if returned to Cuba.
Are blood ties "sacred" to the state? The Cuban state does not recognize paternal rights based on blood or anything else. It alone is the sole guardian of Cuba's children with the right to supercede the parents' authority in all matters pertaining to their children. It can't exert that "right" every day and every minute over every Cuban child, no does it need to; but it will certainly micromanage every second of Elenita's life in Cuba, as it has Elián's for the last 7 years. This will no doubt mean some material comforts for her and her family not enjoyed by ordinary Cubans, but these will be offset by the indignity of being raised in a glass tube, and, in effect, spending the rest of her childhood under house arrest for as long as anybody remembers her name or story. (For Elián this is a life sentence).
When, then, is blood "sacred" in Cuba? The answer must be that blood is "sacred" only when a father is being used as an instrument for the re-enslavement of his offspring. Then "blood" serves a purpose: the interests of the State: the interests of Castro. It is those interests — none other — that The Miami Herald's reporter in Cabaiguán is protecting, as usual.
Friday, September 7, 2007
First Anniversary of Oscar Corral's "Miamí Moonlighters" Story
[Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the publication of Oscar Corral's "Marti Moonlighters" story, on September 8, 2006, possibly the worst moment in the less than storied history of The Miami Herald. I did not at that time have my own blog so I went directly to Corral's Miami's Cuban Connection to take him to task there for what he had done. From the beginning I saw this story for what it was: a fraud. All the arguments that would be used against Corral's story, I anticipated from day one, and kept hammering at them and refining them until the three Cuban-American were restored to their positions and much beyond. In fact, I have not let Oscar Corral forget what he did for one minute, and tomorrow I will publish a rich catalogue of my writings against Oscar Corral, including, of course, HIS MOST ETHICAL MOMENT.
I also made a prophecy about Oscar Corral that day (Sept. 9, 2006). I don't take credit for any clairvoyant powers. It is just that evil so rank is marked by God for a good and complete spin of fate's wheel.]
I
So this is the "big" story on which Oscar Corral has been "working diligently from an undisclosed location" (which he describes as the "underground") for the last few months, causing him to ignore his more mundane responsibilities (such as running this blog). Some speculated here that Oscar was in Cuba getting the "real story" on Castro's medical crisis and Raúl's temporary succession. Oscar did seem to be obsessed with Raul's rise to (higher) power and devoted countless threads to that subject in the last few months. But, no, it was not Raúl that Oscar was going after, but Raúl's enemies, namely, his own Cuban-American brethren in the Fourth Estate, indeed, in The Miami Herald itself. Under the cloak of journalism, this kind of "exposé" is simply regarded as "reporting." In any other profession it would be characterized in another way.
First of all, this is not news because it is not new. Exiled Cuban journalists (and journalists from all the Captive Nations) have been reporting for the Voice of America since its very inception (long before Oscar was born). And, of course, they were all compensated for their work.
I fail to see why such an association with Radio Martí (an offshoot of the Voice of America) should compromise the integrity of any Cuban-American journalist. If Oscar had uncovered that any of his colleagues were receiving payments from Castro (as will undoubtedly be revealed and documented after the demise of Communism in Cuba), then he would have had a real scoop, but one which would certainly have destroyed his career, since he would have been accused of McCarthism and worse. But it is always safe to attack and defame Cuban-Americans in the U.S. media, and this story, which, I have already said, is not even news at all, will likely earn Corral many friends and boosters in circles that will be useful to his career advancement. It is those whom he has vilified who will have to face the consequences of this generational shift, which is really what this story is about: the newcomer making a direct hit at the old guard. The only problem here is that the "bomb" is a dud.
You, Oscar, underestimate the old guard. They are smarter than you and far better polemists, and won't be reciting mea culpas at your feet. You have succeeded, however, in capturing their attention with your coup de main, and, if they didn't before, they certainly know your name now. I suppose that their recognition is what you were after in the first place, and you certainly have that now.
Posted by: Manuel A. Tellechea September 09, 2006 at 01:14 PM
II
No, this wasn't by any means a stellar job of reporting. The reason that it took Oscar several months to wrap-up his non-story is that he was hugging his mailbox until he finally received the Freedom of Information documents which are the basis for his "investigative reporting." Maybe he received the FOI reports from a "safe house" and hence his specious allusions to having gone "underground" like the weasels and moles.
Two important facts have just come out that seriously compromise any claims that Corral might have had to a "scoop" or The Miami Herald to even one ounce of self-righteousness over this matter:
1). It was reported in The Miami Herald itself, in 2002, that a freelance journalist under contract to The Herald was also working for Radio Martí. The freelance journalist was not fired at that time because the editors saw nothing wrong in her conduct. She has been fired now due to Oscar's non-story. Even full disclosure is no defense against arbitrary discharge at The Herald.
2). The original cue for Oscar's story came from a Cuban television program, called "Mesa Redonda" (Round Table), where an official Cuban propagandist, speaking on state television (the only television in Cuba), made the same charge of "inobjectivity" against reporters at The Miami Herald.
Oscar is now apparently the "house Cuban" at The Herald whose job it is to ferret out all dissent from the official Herald party line.
Posted by: Manuel A. Tellechea September 09, 2006 at 03:19 PM
III (The Prophecy)
I hope that Oscar is purer even than Caesar's wife, because you better believe that his own past will be scrutinized with a fine-tooth comb for any conflict of interest or semblance thereof. I hope also that his resumé has not been embellished in any way, because that's all going to be looked into. In fact, every aspect of his life before and after The Herald has now become fair game for any reporter that wants to make a name for himself. Like Corral.
Posted by: Manuel A. Tellechea September 09, 2006 at 04:43 PM
I also made a prophecy about Oscar Corral that day (Sept. 9, 2006). I don't take credit for any clairvoyant powers. It is just that evil so rank is marked by God for a good and complete spin of fate's wheel.]
So this is the "big" story on which Oscar Corral has been "working diligently from an undisclosed location" (which he describes as the "underground") for the last few months, causing him to ignore his more mundane responsibilities (such as running this blog). Some speculated here that Oscar was in Cuba getting the "real story" on Castro's medical crisis and Raúl's temporary succession. Oscar did seem to be obsessed with Raul's rise to (higher) power and devoted countless threads to that subject in the last few months. But, no, it was not Raúl that Oscar was going after, but Raúl's enemies, namely, his own Cuban-American brethren in the Fourth Estate, indeed, in The Miami Herald itself. Under the cloak of journalism, this kind of "exposé" is simply regarded as "reporting." In any other profession it would be characterized in another way.
First of all, this is not news because it is not new. Exiled Cuban journalists (and journalists from all the Captive Nations) have been reporting for the Voice of America since its very inception (long before Oscar was born). And, of course, they were all compensated for their work.
I fail to see why such an association with Radio Martí (an offshoot of the Voice of America) should compromise the integrity of any Cuban-American journalist. If Oscar had uncovered that any of his colleagues were receiving payments from Castro (as will undoubtedly be revealed and documented after the demise of Communism in Cuba), then he would have had a real scoop, but one which would certainly have destroyed his career, since he would have been accused of McCarthism and worse. But it is always safe to attack and defame Cuban-Americans in the U.S. media, and this story, which, I have already said, is not even news at all, will likely earn Corral many friends and boosters in circles that will be useful to his career advancement. It is those whom he has vilified who will have to face the consequences of this generational shift, which is really what this story is about: the newcomer making a direct hit at the old guard. The only problem here is that the "bomb" is a dud.
You, Oscar, underestimate the old guard. They are smarter than you and far better polemists, and won't be reciting mea culpas at your feet. You have succeeded, however, in capturing their attention with your coup de main, and, if they didn't before, they certainly know your name now. I suppose that their recognition is what you were after in the first place, and you certainly have that now.
Posted by: Manuel A. Tellechea September 09, 2006 at 01:14 PM
No, this wasn't by any means a stellar job of reporting. The reason that it took Oscar several months to wrap-up his non-story is that he was hugging his mailbox until he finally received the Freedom of Information documents which are the basis for his "investigative reporting." Maybe he received the FOI reports from a "safe house" and hence his specious allusions to having gone "underground" like the weasels and moles.
Two important facts have just come out that seriously compromise any claims that Corral might have had to a "scoop" or The Miami Herald to even one ounce of self-righteousness over this matter:
1). It was reported in The Miami Herald itself, in 2002, that a freelance journalist under contract to The Herald was also working for Radio Martí. The freelance journalist was not fired at that time because the editors saw nothing wrong in her conduct. She has been fired now due to Oscar's non-story. Even full disclosure is no defense against arbitrary discharge at The Herald.
2). The original cue for Oscar's story came from a Cuban television program, called "Mesa Redonda" (Round Table), where an official Cuban propagandist, speaking on state television (the only television in Cuba), made the same charge of "inobjectivity" against reporters at The Miami Herald.
Oscar is now apparently the "house Cuban" at The Herald whose job it is to ferret out all dissent from the official Herald party line.
Posted by: Manuel A. Tellechea September 09, 2006 at 03:19 PM
I hope that Oscar is purer even than Caesar's wife, because you better believe that his own past will be scrutinized with a fine-tooth comb for any conflict of interest or semblance thereof. I hope also that his resumé has not been embellished in any way, because that's all going to be looked into. In fact, every aspect of his life before and after The Herald has now become fair game for any reporter that wants to make a name for himself. Like Corral.
Posted by: Manuel A. Tellechea September 09, 2006 at 04:43 PM
The Babalunians' Fear of Me Is My Strength
I find myself in a most peculiar position in respect to Babalú. I have always engaged them in the open without camouflage or innuendo: honestly and frankly. This, alas, is beyond them. Their "strategy" is to ignore me but they just can't manage to do it. I am always in their thoughts and they are always on this blog. I mean, for hours. Each day. Sometimes I wonder whether they gather in study circles to analyze every word I write, or leastwise to look each up in the dictionary. But although they are fanatically interested in what I have to say about them, they cannot bring themselves to answer me forthrightly. Obviously they fear that they cannot engage me intellectually and are afraid even to try. Val tried once and he's still nursing those wounds. Henry, who has a better estimate of his abilities in respect to mine, has never tried, which I suppose makes him smarter than Val, though I would need an atom-splitter to split those hairs. And then there is Ziva, who has never made a secret of her admiration for my writing, although she is greatly grieved that I should use it to attack her Cuban muse.
Most of all, however, they are afraid of me.
So afraid, indeed, that they do not mention me by name when they allude to me, much less cite the Review of Cuban-American Blogs. They know that to do so would mean the death of Babalú. Every time that someone tells them that he has discovered the RCAB it chills them to the bone. It's like an atomic bomb that floats over heads. They try to ignore it but can't keep their eyes off it. It's OK. I understand.
So when Stuck on the Palmetto engages them in a flame war — and they can't, as they usually do, run away — they direct their feeble guns at me, not Rick or Alex. I have already declared my neutrality in this dispute, having already asserted that it is impossible for me to choose between "The Prince of Darkness" and "The King of Fools," so well-matched in this contest that it may well become another "Hundred Years War" before they call a truce and marry each other's daughters.
Ziva, in her remarks aimed at me, mistakenly classes me with "locals who waste cyberspace bitching, and writing asinine second guessed critiques," etc. I am not a "local," of course. I've never lived in Miamiu and it's been 10 years since I last visited it. Nevertheless, I am Babalú's chief "dissenter," and whenever they address their detractors they inevitably will find their way back to me. Quickly, too. It's called an obsession:
"One ["pigeon'] in particular comes to mind; a very talented Cuban writer and patriot who could/should use said talent to eviscerate the regime we all agree is the enemy. What a waste! Que clase de come mierda, if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
Ziva is a faithful reader of this blog and knows that I use my talents to "eviscerate the regime" and still have enough left over to eviscerate Babalú. She knows, too, that I was once a part of their "solution" till Val booted me from Babalú for criticizing Gloria Estefan (respectfully) whom 4 months later Val would allow one of his staff writers to label a "traitor." No, Ziva, I no longer wish to be a part of Babalú's "solution" because it is no solution, just a continuation of the same 48-year problem.
Henry put the brakes to Ziva's enthusiasm. Also quickly. Poor Ziva actually seems to think that as an editorial writer for Babalú she has the right to write about what she wants to write about. No, Ziva, you are not an equal among equals; you are too smart to thus delude yourself. In any case, Val and Henry will bring you down to earth when you try to soar too high, that is, when, your natural instincts threaten the future of hallowed Babalú. So Henry admonished Ziva to "settle down" like a good little doggie: don't turn this into War and Peace. And Henry is right. To publicize what I say about Babalú on Babalú would be the death knell of Babalú. If Ziva ever attempted such a thing, she would be a fifth-columnist, the viper nestling at Val's breast.
Henry, of course, is good at setting others on the high road, but very bad at taking it himself: "I don't think there's enough time to catalog the rantings of a jealous lunatic." Oh, you have time, Henry; you just don't have the talent to refute the "jealous lunatic" and are too afraid to even try. You are far more realistic about your abilities than Ziva is about hers. And you are, again, right.
As for being "jealous" of you, Henry, what is it that I have to be jealous about? I am a better polemist; I am a better writer; I am a better human being; and I don't run away from my opponents muttering incongruencies.
To Ziva's well-trained ear, Henry's wishes are commands. She knows there is no option for her but to capitulate immediately and completely, and she does. Henry is right "of course." It would be War and Peace and there is not "enough time" nor am I "deserving of the effort." So all the hundreds of hours that poor Ziva spent gathering quotes from me on this blog were all for naught. She will not be allowed to use her "ammunition."
And, indeed, why even try? Does anyone doubt how this version of War and Peace would end? Exactly as Tolstoy's novel (and history) did: the retreat would begin before the offensive.
***
Before they delete their own comments and to insure that they won't, I will reproduce the exchange between Ziva and Henry on a post ostensibly about Stuck on the Palmetto:
Oh man, I have been waiting for this. I have a list, a long one.... I hope this isn't just going to be about a certain local species of "pigeon," but all locals who waste cyberspace bitching, and writing asinine second guessed critiques that make obvious the fact that they do not read Babalu, and don't know the contributors because, either they are full of shit, or they need their medication adjusted. One in particular comes to mind; a very talented Cuban writer and patriot who could/should use said talent to eviscerate the regime we all agree is the enemy. What a waste! Que clase de come mierda, if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
Posted by: Ziva at September 7, 2007 01:15 AM
Ziva,
Settle down, it's a "semi-regular" feature not War and Peace. I don't think there's enough time to catalog the jealous rants of a lunatic.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at September 7, 2007 01:33 AM
¨War and Peace¨ you're right of course, not enough time, and not deserving of the effort.
Posted by: Ziva at September 7, 2007 02:16 AM
Most of all, however, they are afraid of me.
So afraid, indeed, that they do not mention me by name when they allude to me, much less cite the Review of Cuban-American Blogs. They know that to do so would mean the death of Babalú. Every time that someone tells them that he has discovered the RCAB it chills them to the bone. It's like an atomic bomb that floats over heads. They try to ignore it but can't keep their eyes off it. It's OK. I understand.
So when Stuck on the Palmetto engages them in a flame war — and they can't, as they usually do, run away — they direct their feeble guns at me, not Rick or Alex. I have already declared my neutrality in this dispute, having already asserted that it is impossible for me to choose between "The Prince of Darkness" and "The King of Fools," so well-matched in this contest that it may well become another "Hundred Years War" before they call a truce and marry each other's daughters.
Ziva, in her remarks aimed at me, mistakenly classes me with "locals who waste cyberspace bitching, and writing asinine second guessed critiques," etc. I am not a "local," of course. I've never lived in Miamiu and it's been 10 years since I last visited it. Nevertheless, I am Babalú's chief "dissenter," and whenever they address their detractors they inevitably will find their way back to me. Quickly, too. It's called an obsession:
"One ["pigeon'] in particular comes to mind; a very talented Cuban writer and patriot who could/should use said talent to eviscerate the regime we all agree is the enemy. What a waste! Que clase de come mierda, if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
Ziva is a faithful reader of this blog and knows that I use my talents to "eviscerate the regime" and still have enough left over to eviscerate Babalú. She knows, too, that I was once a part of their "solution" till Val booted me from Babalú for criticizing Gloria Estefan (respectfully) whom 4 months later Val would allow one of his staff writers to label a "traitor." No, Ziva, I no longer wish to be a part of Babalú's "solution" because it is no solution, just a continuation of the same 48-year problem.
Henry put the brakes to Ziva's enthusiasm. Also quickly. Poor Ziva actually seems to think that as an editorial writer for Babalú she has the right to write about what she wants to write about. No, Ziva, you are not an equal among equals; you are too smart to thus delude yourself. In any case, Val and Henry will bring you down to earth when you try to soar too high, that is, when, your natural instincts threaten the future of hallowed Babalú. So Henry admonished Ziva to "settle down" like a good little doggie: don't turn this into War and Peace. And Henry is right. To publicize what I say about Babalú on Babalú would be the death knell of Babalú. If Ziva ever attempted such a thing, she would be a fifth-columnist, the viper nestling at Val's breast.
Henry, of course, is good at setting others on the high road, but very bad at taking it himself: "I don't think there's enough time to catalog the rantings of a jealous lunatic." Oh, you have time, Henry; you just don't have the talent to refute the "jealous lunatic" and are too afraid to even try. You are far more realistic about your abilities than Ziva is about hers. And you are, again, right.
As for being "jealous" of you, Henry, what is it that I have to be jealous about? I am a better polemist; I am a better writer; I am a better human being; and I don't run away from my opponents muttering incongruencies.
To Ziva's well-trained ear, Henry's wishes are commands. She knows there is no option for her but to capitulate immediately and completely, and she does. Henry is right "of course." It would be War and Peace and there is not "enough time" nor am I "deserving of the effort." So all the hundreds of hours that poor Ziva spent gathering quotes from me on this blog were all for naught. She will not be allowed to use her "ammunition."
And, indeed, why even try? Does anyone doubt how this version of War and Peace would end? Exactly as Tolstoy's novel (and history) did: the retreat would begin before the offensive.
Before they delete their own comments and to insure that they won't, I will reproduce the exchange between Ziva and Henry on a post ostensibly about Stuck on the Palmetto:
Oh man, I have been waiting for this. I have a list, a long one.... I hope this isn't just going to be about a certain local species of "pigeon," but all locals who waste cyberspace bitching, and writing asinine second guessed critiques that make obvious the fact that they do not read Babalu, and don't know the contributors because, either they are full of shit, or they need their medication adjusted. One in particular comes to mind; a very talented Cuban writer and patriot who could/should use said talent to eviscerate the regime we all agree is the enemy. What a waste! Que clase de come mierda, if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
Posted by: Ziva at September 7, 2007 01:15 AM
Ziva,
Settle down, it's a "semi-regular" feature not War and Peace. I don't think there's enough time to catalog the jealous rants of a lunatic.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at September 7, 2007 01:33 AM
¨War and Peace¨ you're right of course, not enough time, and not deserving of the effort.
Posted by: Ziva at September 7, 2007 02:16 AM
Thursday, September 6, 2007
"The more I read about this case ... " the less of an idiot you will be
The more I read about this case ... the shadier it looks. — Henry Gómez
It appears that Babalú's Henry Gómez is having second thoughts about his shameless advocacy of Fidel Castro's interests in the case of the abused little Cuban girl whose birth father wants to lay her at Fidel Castro's feet as a propitiatory offering to the horn-of-plenty. From the first Henry refused to utter even one word on her behalf and even accused me of being the only one who gave a damn about her (not true then or now). Now he seems to be experiencing a conversion of sorts. Castro's cold hand on the little girl's shoulder didn't do it for him; rather, it was Magda Montiel-Davis' suborning of perjury, fabrication of evidence and hostage-taking of the girl's mother that caused him to "read more about this case..." Keep reading, Henry. The truth was always on the other side of your prejudices. This case was always shady. It's you who is now not so much in the shade as before.
This case does not have anything to do with The Miami Herald and its intentions. It never did. It has everything to do with Fidel Castro's intentions. Get it?
It appears that Babalú's Henry Gómez is having second thoughts about his shameless advocacy of Fidel Castro's interests in the case of the abused little Cuban girl whose birth father wants to lay her at Fidel Castro's feet as a propitiatory offering to the horn-of-plenty. From the first Henry refused to utter even one word on her behalf and even accused me of being the only one who gave a damn about her (not true then or now). Now he seems to be experiencing a conversion of sorts. Castro's cold hand on the little girl's shoulder didn't do it for him; rather, it was Magda Montiel-Davis' suborning of perjury, fabrication of evidence and hostage-taking of the girl's mother that caused him to "read more about this case..." Keep reading, Henry. The truth was always on the other side of your prejudices. This case was always shady. It's you who is now not so much in the shade as before.
This case does not have anything to do with The Miami Herald and its intentions. It never did. It has everything to do with Fidel Castro's intentions. Get it?
The Last Redoubt of Magical Realism: Judge Jeri Beth Cohen's Courtroom
A favorite phrase of Judge Jeri Beth Cohen's when confronted, as she has been, time and time again during the Cubas-Izquierdo custody trial, with the fabrications of evidence and suborning of perjury committed by Kurzban, Montiel-Davis and their associates, is that she finds it all "very concerning." Concerning what? Concerning whom? She does not say.
Obviously, however, it does not mean that she is herself concerned about it because she has done nothing to stop it. She should have removed the lawyers responsible for the malfeasance pending judicial review, and if their associates could not continue without them, dismissed the case with prejudice. She could also have held the self-admitted perjurer in contempt of court and remanded her ex-boyfriend to the law on the same charge as well as for complicity in the fabrication of evidence. Judge Cohen, after all, held the evidence in her hands — the fake letters which Izquierdo contended he had sent Pérez. Perhaps these letters will soon disappear from the official court record, as all documents pertaining to Pérez's deposition surrendering custody of her daughter to the state have already disappeared. Truly, Judge Cohen's courtroom seems to be a last redoubt of magical realism. There reality is constantly challenged by illusion, real documents dematerialize and are replaced by bogus ones; the court record is fluid and always in transition; fantasies are more weighted than facts; and all of this swathed in Judge Cohen's asyndetic "concerning."
In the latest incidences of perjury to be foisted on her everlasting "concerning," the abused little girl's abuser, that is, her mother, has testified that she lied originally when she contended that her erstwhile adulterous partner did not know about her mental illness. In fact, Elena Pérez now admits, that he knew everything about her mental health "issues." Of course he knew. Everybody knew about it in their hometown of Cabaiguán, where everybody knew her as the town crazie and predicted disaster when they learned she was to immigrate. Izquierdo would have to be crazier than her not to have known it, too. And yet, as she now acknowledges, his lawyers had pressured her to testify that he didn't know. Why? Because if he did know that his lover was a schizophrenic, dangerous to herself and others, why did he surrender sole custody to her and even allow her to take their daughter to the United States, where, as he now claims, he was helpless to do anything on her behalf? So much for his "see no evil, hear no evil" defense for parental abandonment. It is the same defense which mothers offer for allowing their daughters to be raped for years by their fathers. Of course they knew, and of course he knows. Even Elena Pérez seems to realize at long last that this was wrong: "He was aware of the problems and even so, he authorized the exit," she testified. Hopefully, Judge Cohen will also be struck at some point by the same revelation.
Another development which the judge should be concerned about was Pérez's admission that she was living at the home of Montiel-Davis' secretary. This is tantamount to, say, John Dean living at Archibold Cox's secretary's house during the Watergate proceedings. The Castro-by-proxy attorneys have in fact kidnapped the lead witness in this case and are keeping her at close quarters. She's not reading the script they've prepared for her to their entire satisfaction, but when she has lied it has always been at their instructions; and if she did get caught up in her (their) lies, it was not because she wasn't willing to cooperate. It was only when she was advised of the consequences of perjury and became aware that her "benefactors" were in fact setting her up that Elena Pérez finally decided to tell the court the truth and the truth completely undermines Izquierdo's case and will affect him and his whole legal team for the worse.
Judge Cohen used to threaten to throw out this case every 30 minutes unless the Department of Children and Family Services could prove that the father was an unfit parent. Guess what? The Florida DCF now doesn't have to prove anything. Kurzban and Montiel-Davis have done an excellent job of proving it for them.
Obviously, however, it does not mean that she is herself concerned about it because she has done nothing to stop it. She should have removed the lawyers responsible for the malfeasance pending judicial review, and if their associates could not continue without them, dismissed the case with prejudice. She could also have held the self-admitted perjurer in contempt of court and remanded her ex-boyfriend to the law on the same charge as well as for complicity in the fabrication of evidence. Judge Cohen, after all, held the evidence in her hands — the fake letters which Izquierdo contended he had sent Pérez. Perhaps these letters will soon disappear from the official court record, as all documents pertaining to Pérez's deposition surrendering custody of her daughter to the state have already disappeared. Truly, Judge Cohen's courtroom seems to be a last redoubt of magical realism. There reality is constantly challenged by illusion, real documents dematerialize and are replaced by bogus ones; the court record is fluid and always in transition; fantasies are more weighted than facts; and all of this swathed in Judge Cohen's asyndetic "concerning."
In the latest incidences of perjury to be foisted on her everlasting "concerning," the abused little girl's abuser, that is, her mother, has testified that she lied originally when she contended that her erstwhile adulterous partner did not know about her mental illness. In fact, Elena Pérez now admits, that he knew everything about her mental health "issues." Of course he knew. Everybody knew about it in their hometown of Cabaiguán, where everybody knew her as the town crazie and predicted disaster when they learned she was to immigrate. Izquierdo would have to be crazier than her not to have known it, too. And yet, as she now acknowledges, his lawyers had pressured her to testify that he didn't know. Why? Because if he did know that his lover was a schizophrenic, dangerous to herself and others, why did he surrender sole custody to her and even allow her to take their daughter to the United States, where, as he now claims, he was helpless to do anything on her behalf? So much for his "see no evil, hear no evil" defense for parental abandonment. It is the same defense which mothers offer for allowing their daughters to be raped for years by their fathers. Of course they knew, and of course he knows. Even Elena Pérez seems to realize at long last that this was wrong: "He was aware of the problems and even so, he authorized the exit," she testified. Hopefully, Judge Cohen will also be struck at some point by the same revelation.
Another development which the judge should be concerned about was Pérez's admission that she was living at the home of Montiel-Davis' secretary. This is tantamount to, say, John Dean living at Archibold Cox's secretary's house during the Watergate proceedings. The Castro-by-proxy attorneys have in fact kidnapped the lead witness in this case and are keeping her at close quarters. She's not reading the script they've prepared for her to their entire satisfaction, but when she has lied it has always been at their instructions; and if she did get caught up in her (their) lies, it was not because she wasn't willing to cooperate. It was only when she was advised of the consequences of perjury and became aware that her "benefactors" were in fact setting her up that Elena Pérez finally decided to tell the court the truth and the truth completely undermines Izquierdo's case and will affect him and his whole legal team for the worse.
Judge Cohen used to threaten to throw out this case every 30 minutes unless the Department of Children and Family Services could prove that the father was an unfit parent. Guess what? The Florida DCF now doesn't have to prove anything. Kurzban and Montiel-Davis have done an excellent job of proving it for them.
Luciano Pavarotti (1935-2007), R.I.P.
Luciano Pavarotti, the greatest operatic tenor since Caruso, is dead. He never sang in Cuba. Enrico Caruso did, many times. Of course, we were a civilized nation then. Cuba, for those who care to know it, was the operatic capitol of the Americas long before opera became popular in the United States. Cuba's present chancletacracy, which aped many of the tastes of the elite, never quite developed a taste for opera.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Babaloo's Waterloos: A Poll Mocking the Suffering of an Abused Child
I can always tell how stupid he is capable of being, but never how degenerate. There Val Prieto will never cease to surpass my expectations, and, I suspect, those of his closest associates. It is this capacity to surprise, shock and offend which is his chief attraction at Babalú. When and how Val will next degrade his fellow Cuban-Americans and himself gives a certain tension to his blog. It's like the play that starts with a character planting a bomb under the sofa before the other characters enter. No matter how horrible the play, theatergoers will stay glued to their seats until the bomb goes off. So is it with Babalú.
Now we know that nothing is beneath Val; for he has chosen as the target of his black humor none other than the abused 4-year old girl whose birth father wants to compound her already considerable suffering by returning her to Cuba as another human exhibit for Fidel's trophy case.
Val has made the girl's fate the subject of a poll; but no ordinary poll, but one infused with all the sophomoric ridicule of which he is capable, and he can plump those depths farther than most, well, sophomores.
Val starts by confessing that the little girl's fate doesn't matter to him. He calls this "honesty." I suppose it is. Or, at least as honest as the opinion of candid Germans about the fate of the Jews. No skin off their backs, so to speak.
Val writes that he has avoided discussing the case because he "ha[sn't] wanted to fall into the whole Elián argument once again." This is rather odd since he confessed 2 weeks ago on the Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour that he had never written a single word on behalf of Elián. How can he "fall into the whole Elián argument once again" if he never "fell" for it the first time? I don't know if Val actually argued for Elián's return to Cuba, as his friend and partner Henry Gómez did at the time. But isn't silence in the face of injustice also acquiescense? At least Martí thought so. But what does Val know about Martí? Or, more to the point, what does he know about Cuba period? What he learned in books? Well, that would be the day ...
Val has encapsulated his disdain for Elenita's plight, and, indeed, for that of all newcomers from Cuba — who should have stayed on the island and added their body temperatures to Val's proverbial pressure cooker — in a blog poll which should offend all Cubans who are not as denatured as he is.
Phrased in the worst terms of minstrelry, half-Ricky Ricardo and half Steppin Fetchit, Val asks: "Should the girl be returned to Cuba?" and provides the following possible answers:
º No. The father ees no telling de truth.
º Yes. De girl beelongs wid de father.
º Ches. And send Magda and Ira back wid her.
º If the father wants her, send her back. Alla el.
Four possible answers to this poll, and three involve sending the little girl back to Cuba. Why isn't this surprising?
I am curious to know what Ziva and George Moneo will have to say about this poll. Both are on record as opposing the return of the little girl to Cuba and both also opposed the return of Elián. George got into a somewhat heated argument on the Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour with both Val and Henry over their blasé attitude towards the fate of both children. As Val says, "There are much more pressing issues for us to focus on." Such as, when is Val going to launch his next "Fidel is Dead" hoax?
POSTSCRIPT:
Val's poll seems to have backfired on him. His readers don't find his joke funny. More than two-thirds (67%) have voted against sending the little girl back to Cuba. On this issue, at least, the Babalunians are resoundingly anti-Val.
POSTSCRIPT 2:
Babalú has taken down the insulting poll.
POSTSCRIPT 3:
Babalú has restored the offensive poll. To see the results of the poll (posted; suppressed and restored):
http://www.blogpoll.com/poll/view_Results.php?poll_id=128210
Now we know that nothing is beneath Val; for he has chosen as the target of his black humor none other than the abused 4-year old girl whose birth father wants to compound her already considerable suffering by returning her to Cuba as another human exhibit for Fidel's trophy case.
Val has made the girl's fate the subject of a poll; but no ordinary poll, but one infused with all the sophomoric ridicule of which he is capable, and he can plump those depths farther than most, well, sophomores.
Val starts by confessing that the little girl's fate doesn't matter to him. He calls this "honesty." I suppose it is. Or, at least as honest as the opinion of candid Germans about the fate of the Jews. No skin off their backs, so to speak.
Val writes that he has avoided discussing the case because he "ha[sn't] wanted to fall into the whole Elián argument once again." This is rather odd since he confessed 2 weeks ago on the Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour that he had never written a single word on behalf of Elián. How can he "fall into the whole Elián argument once again" if he never "fell" for it the first time? I don't know if Val actually argued for Elián's return to Cuba, as his friend and partner Henry Gómez did at the time. But isn't silence in the face of injustice also acquiescense? At least Martí thought so. But what does Val know about Martí? Or, more to the point, what does he know about Cuba period? What he learned in books? Well, that would be the day ...
Val has encapsulated his disdain for Elenita's plight, and, indeed, for that of all newcomers from Cuba — who should have stayed on the island and added their body temperatures to Val's proverbial pressure cooker — in a blog poll which should offend all Cubans who are not as denatured as he is.
Phrased in the worst terms of minstrelry, half-Ricky Ricardo and half Steppin Fetchit, Val asks: "Should the girl be returned to Cuba?" and provides the following possible answers:
º No. The father ees no telling de truth.
º Yes. De girl beelongs wid de father.
º Ches. And send Magda and Ira back wid her.
º If the father wants her, send her back. Alla el.
Four possible answers to this poll, and three involve sending the little girl back to Cuba. Why isn't this surprising?
I am curious to know what Ziva and George Moneo will have to say about this poll. Both are on record as opposing the return of the little girl to Cuba and both also opposed the return of Elián. George got into a somewhat heated argument on the Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour with both Val and Henry over their blasé attitude towards the fate of both children. As Val says, "There are much more pressing issues for us to focus on." Such as, when is Val going to launch his next "Fidel is Dead" hoax?
POSTSCRIPT:
Val's poll seems to have backfired on him. His readers don't find his joke funny. More than two-thirds (67%) have voted against sending the little girl back to Cuba. On this issue, at least, the Babalunians are resoundingly anti-Val.
POSTSCRIPT 2:
Babalú has taken down the insulting poll.
POSTSCRIPT 3:
Babalú has restored the offensive poll. To see the results of the poll (posted; suppressed and restored):
http://www.blogpoll.com/poll/view_Results.php?poll_id=128210
No Common Sense at Uncommon Sense
As I once remarked, common sense is better than uncommon sense. Proving my point yet again, Marc R. Másferrer has spiced-up his Uncommon Sense blog with a dash of elitism. In reconfiguring his links (what a fine phrase!), he has established a four-tier hierarchy of Cuba-themed blogs: News from Cuba [i.e. Bloggers from Cuba] (yes, by all means, let's isolate them from the rest of us); Cuba Blogs: The A List; and More Cuba Blogs (The "B List" by default); and Cuba Mami Blogs (by all means, turn the Cuban blogger fraternity into a "He-Man Woman Haters Club").
I will not quibble with Marc's choices (some of which are rather peculiar); he is free to link whomever he pleases, even pro-Castro blogs such as "Mambo" Watch (in the "A List"). I could also point out that the best of all Cuba-themed blogs, Alberto Quiroga's Havana, 50-60, is relegated to the "B List." I could critique his choices endlessly; but far be it for me to sow dissent. I will let self-avowed elitists like Marc do that.
Marc also linked RCAB for about two weeks at the inception of this blog before being instructed by Val Prieto to sever the connection. I am now grateful to Val for he inadvertently saved us from the indignity of being classed among the "B List" blogs or perhaps even worse.
As for Marc, he must belong on the "A List," too, or maybe the "AA List," since someone who would presume to create such categories must think very well of his own blog. Which, of course, he is entitled to.
Here's are Marc's choices, sprinkle liberally with pinches of salt:
Cuba blogs: The A list
26th Parallel
Alberto de la Cruz
Babalú
Blog for Cuba
Bloggers United for Cuban Liberty
Castro Death Watch
Child of the Revolution
Claudia4Libertad
Cuba Watch
Cuban Triangle, The
Cuban-American Pundits
Cubapolidata
El Cafe Cubano
Havana Note, The
KillCastro
La Contra Revolución
Mambi Watch
Mirando a Cuba
Penúltimos Días
Real Cuba, The
More Cuba blogs [The "B List"]
Abajo Fidel
Asymmetric
Baracutey Cubano
Coalition of Cuban-American Women
Cuba-Blog
Cuban Colada
El Confeti
El Güinero
El Mizzoubanazo
El Tono de la Voz
Glimpse of Cuba, A
Havana 50-60
La Ventanita
Lissandra's Thoughts
Marielito's blog
Medicina Cubana
Mirando a Cuba
Nuestra Cuba Libre
Paxety Pages
Religión en Revolución
Tomas Estrada-Palma
Working Towards A Free Cuba
H/t to Val for bringing the changes on Marc's blog to everybody's attention (though not this particular change).
Linked Today, Unlinked Tomorrow
Common Sense is Better than Uncommon Sense
The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes
I will not quibble with Marc's choices (some of which are rather peculiar); he is free to link whomever he pleases, even pro-Castro blogs such as "Mambo" Watch (in the "A List"). I could also point out that the best of all Cuba-themed blogs, Alberto Quiroga's Havana, 50-60, is relegated to the "B List." I could critique his choices endlessly; but far be it for me to sow dissent. I will let self-avowed elitists like Marc do that.
Marc also linked RCAB for about two weeks at the inception of this blog before being instructed by Val Prieto to sever the connection. I am now grateful to Val for he inadvertently saved us from the indignity of being classed among the "B List" blogs or perhaps even worse.
As for Marc, he must belong on the "A List," too, or maybe the "AA List," since someone who would presume to create such categories must think very well of his own blog. Which, of course, he is entitled to.
Here's are Marc's choices, sprinkle liberally with pinches of salt:
Cuba blogs: The A list
26th Parallel
Alberto de la Cruz
Babalú
Blog for Cuba
Bloggers United for Cuban Liberty
Castro Death Watch
Child of the Revolution
Claudia4Libertad
Cuba Watch
Cuban Triangle, The
Cuban-American Pundits
Cubapolidata
El Cafe Cubano
Havana Note, The
KillCastro
La Contra Revolución
Mambi Watch
Mirando a Cuba
Penúltimos Días
Real Cuba, The
More Cuba blogs [The "B List"]
Abajo Fidel
Asymmetric
Baracutey Cubano
Coalition of Cuban-American Women
Cuba-Blog
Cuban Colada
El Confeti
El Güinero
El Mizzoubanazo
El Tono de la Voz
Glimpse of Cuba, A
Havana 50-60
La Ventanita
Lissandra's Thoughts
Marielito's blog
Medicina Cubana
Mirando a Cuba
Nuestra Cuba Libre
Paxety Pages
Religión en Revolución
Tomas Estrada-Palma
Working Towards A Free Cuba
H/t to Val for bringing the changes on Marc's blog to everybody's attention (though not this particular change).
Linked Today, Unlinked Tomorrow
Common Sense is Better than Uncommon Sense
The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
By Their Scars You Will Know Them: The Ordeal of Elenita and Her Brother
In alluding to the little Cuban girl whose birth father wants to return her to Cuba as a trophy for Castro, I never forgot to identify her as the abused little Cuban girl. It is something that other conspicuously avoided doing as if it were disrespectful to the mother, the father or even the child to acknowledge that it is her abuse at her mother's hands, ignored by the indifferent and later complicit father, which was the crux of the custody case. I also said that her brother's testimony was indispensable in settling it, and was frankly shocked when the Department of Children and Families reluctantly agreed to put him on the stand as if that were even a choice. Besides the one who inflicted it, the only witness to the mother's abuse was the girl's older brother. The father, by his own admission, never saw the abuse because he only visited his daughter once every two weeks though they lived in the same small town and no one had restricted his visitation rights (certainly not the girl's mother, his mistress). The grandparents, who for a time looked after the children owing to the mother insanity, claim that they didn't see the abuse either. But the brother both saw it practiced on his sister and experienced it himself. He told Elenita's father and grandparents (whom he claims also witnessed it). But in the Pérez-Izquierdo families, apparently, seeing is believing, and since they claim they never saw the abuse taking place, they never did anything about it.
The father, in particular, was the most blind of them all; for he granted the mother legal authorization to take this matter outside everybody's view by removing the girl to the United States, where Pérez's Miami relatives made sure that they saw even less by kicking her and her children out of their house on the second day of their arrival from Cuba. Once his daughter was out of Cabaiguan, Izquierdo never wrote, phoned or had any contact whatever with daughter or mother. It was as if he had symbolically buried his own daughter. And so he had, until Fidel reawakened in him long dormant paternal instincts and instructed him to bring his daughter back to Cuba.
If it had been any other abused little girl, it wouldn't have mattered to Fidel: they're a dime a dozen in Havana's streets; but this particular little girl was important to Castro because he detested her foster father, sports agent Joe Cubas, who wanted to adopt Elenita as he had her brother. Castro hated him because Cubas had "stolen" Castro's prized slaves off his plantation and brought them to freedom in the U.S., where they were finally able to use their God-giving talents on their own behalf rather than the State's. Because Cubas had robbed him of his propaganda tools, Castro was determined to turn the child that Cubas wanted to adopt into a propaganda tool herself at 4 years of age. This case was never anything but Fidel Castro's own personal vendetta played out in a U.S. courtroom, with a little girl's life hanging in the balance.
The testimony of the abused little girl's 13-year old brother made clear just how monumentally unfit mother and father, and, indeed, the whole Izquierdo clan in Cuba, are to raise his 4-year old sister. In fact, they all belong in jail as abusers and enablers of abuse, as do the Izquierdo lawyers, Kurzban and Montiel-Davis, for suborning perjury and purloining and fabricating evidence. Ironically, the only people that stand to be punished in Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen's courtroom are the abused little girl, her brother and his adoptive parents José and María Cubas if the girl is returned to her father's custody, as the judge has on repeated occasions threatened to do throughout the trial.
Testifying via video feed to the courtroom, the boy recounted a harrowing story of abuse at his mother's hands that spanned all his years with her: lashed with a belt; kicked while on the ground; beaten with a stick; choked; forced to struggle with knife-wielding mother; and now compelled to relive those horrible days in an American courtroom. But he is the "lucky" one. After testifying, the boy can return home to his "papi" and "mami," as he calls his adoptive parents, certain that he will never be hurt again by his birth mother but far from happy, because his sister's life is still at stake. He had come to the courtroom with a mission — to save her. He had done so many times before; the only member of his family who had ever tried.
The point at issue, of course, is not whether the boy or his sister were abused by their mother. The mother has confessed to that abuse, repeatedly, although The Miami Herald and other media outlets still insist on referring to it as "alleged abuse."
What matters in this case is whether the girl's biological father, Rafael Izquierdo, knew of the abuse or tried to stop it. The brother's testimony leaves no doubt that he did know. The boy told Izquierdo himself of the abuse on one of his twice-monthly visits to see his daughter, one of the bravest acts that any child can commit, since it entailed "betraying" the mother in order to save his sister (with all attendant consequences of such a "betrayal"). His own abuse he had endured in silence for years; but it was only when his mother visited it on his infant sister as well that he dared to speak out.
And what did Izquierdo do to protect the daughter that he had wanted his lover to abort? He did nothing.
The boy also testified that his mother wanted to leave his baby sister with Izquierdo when she won a visa lottery that allowed her to immigrate legally to the U.S.; the father, however, refused.
The abuse Izquierdo had sanctioned by his inaction in Cuba, he further sanctioned, and, indeed, perpetuated, by allowing the mother to take her to the U.S., where he wouldn't have been able to stop the abuse even were he so inclined. In fact, so sure was Izquierdo that the abuse would continue, and so determined not to be bothered with it, that he severed immediately all lines of communication between himself and his daughter and her mother.
Again, in the U.S., it became the boy's responsibility to save his sister and himself when his mother attempted to commit suicide with a knife on a day in December 2005, in the very bedroom where his sister was sleeping.
"I started crying and screaming. Please stop. Please stop," he recounted. "After 25 seconds, I stopped crying and got angry, and I said, "If you are going to do this, please call the police first."
She did call the police, so that they would take her children away. She had already spent months trying to give them away to acquaintances and strangers.
The birth mother was present in the courtroom during most of her birth son's testimony but was finally led away it in an apoplexy of tears.
Outside the courtroom, she read a letter to her son, where she again admitted abusing him and excused herself on the grounds that she didn't know better because it was part of the "culture of abuse" in which she herself had been raised. I wonder who schooled her on the politically-correct language which she used to justify her abuse? No doubt the same people (Izquierdo's lawyers) that presented her with fake letters from Izquierdo to submit as evidence of his concern for his daughter or asked her to provide them with photographs of the child so that Izquierdo could claim that he ever asked her for any.
By surrendering custody of her son and consenting to his adoption by José and María Cubas — the only thing she ever did for him besides not aborting him — Elena Pérez will have no further contact with her son and his words are the last that she will ever hear from him, or at least the last that she deserves to hear. He is save from her now, protected by parents who can give him something which she never could — love. Still, in his noble child's heart, he admitted that in some corner of it he still loved her.
But he can afford to love her from afar. His sister is not as lucky. She is not out of her mother's reach yet. The birth father Rafael Izquierdo has said that if he is given custody of her, he will not deny the mother access to her. On the contrary he promises to share custody with her in Cuba. The mother herself has said that she will herself return to the island the moment that her daughter does.
So what, exactly, makes this case such a difficult one for Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen to decide? Well, the evidence so far all tilts in one direction, and she has to find a way to make it tilt the other way. Each day that becomes even more difficult. In the end Judge Cohen may even be forced to do the right thing because she will have no other viable option. Let us hope so.
The father, in particular, was the most blind of them all; for he granted the mother legal authorization to take this matter outside everybody's view by removing the girl to the United States, where Pérez's Miami relatives made sure that they saw even less by kicking her and her children out of their house on the second day of their arrival from Cuba. Once his daughter was out of Cabaiguan, Izquierdo never wrote, phoned or had any contact whatever with daughter or mother. It was as if he had symbolically buried his own daughter. And so he had, until Fidel reawakened in him long dormant paternal instincts and instructed him to bring his daughter back to Cuba.
If it had been any other abused little girl, it wouldn't have mattered to Fidel: they're a dime a dozen in Havana's streets; but this particular little girl was important to Castro because he detested her foster father, sports agent Joe Cubas, who wanted to adopt Elenita as he had her brother. Castro hated him because Cubas had "stolen" Castro's prized slaves off his plantation and brought them to freedom in the U.S., where they were finally able to use their God-giving talents on their own behalf rather than the State's. Because Cubas had robbed him of his propaganda tools, Castro was determined to turn the child that Cubas wanted to adopt into a propaganda tool herself at 4 years of age. This case was never anything but Fidel Castro's own personal vendetta played out in a U.S. courtroom, with a little girl's life hanging in the balance.
The testimony of the abused little girl's 13-year old brother made clear just how monumentally unfit mother and father, and, indeed, the whole Izquierdo clan in Cuba, are to raise his 4-year old sister. In fact, they all belong in jail as abusers and enablers of abuse, as do the Izquierdo lawyers, Kurzban and Montiel-Davis, for suborning perjury and purloining and fabricating evidence. Ironically, the only people that stand to be punished in Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen's courtroom are the abused little girl, her brother and his adoptive parents José and María Cubas if the girl is returned to her father's custody, as the judge has on repeated occasions threatened to do throughout the trial.
Testifying via video feed to the courtroom, the boy recounted a harrowing story of abuse at his mother's hands that spanned all his years with her: lashed with a belt; kicked while on the ground; beaten with a stick; choked; forced to struggle with knife-wielding mother; and now compelled to relive those horrible days in an American courtroom. But he is the "lucky" one. After testifying, the boy can return home to his "papi" and "mami," as he calls his adoptive parents, certain that he will never be hurt again by his birth mother but far from happy, because his sister's life is still at stake. He had come to the courtroom with a mission — to save her. He had done so many times before; the only member of his family who had ever tried.
The point at issue, of course, is not whether the boy or his sister were abused by their mother. The mother has confessed to that abuse, repeatedly, although The Miami Herald and other media outlets still insist on referring to it as "alleged abuse."
What matters in this case is whether the girl's biological father, Rafael Izquierdo, knew of the abuse or tried to stop it. The brother's testimony leaves no doubt that he did know. The boy told Izquierdo himself of the abuse on one of his twice-monthly visits to see his daughter, one of the bravest acts that any child can commit, since it entailed "betraying" the mother in order to save his sister (with all attendant consequences of such a "betrayal"). His own abuse he had endured in silence for years; but it was only when his mother visited it on his infant sister as well that he dared to speak out.
And what did Izquierdo do to protect the daughter that he had wanted his lover to abort? He did nothing.
The boy also testified that his mother wanted to leave his baby sister with Izquierdo when she won a visa lottery that allowed her to immigrate legally to the U.S.; the father, however, refused.
The abuse Izquierdo had sanctioned by his inaction in Cuba, he further sanctioned, and, indeed, perpetuated, by allowing the mother to take her to the U.S., where he wouldn't have been able to stop the abuse even were he so inclined. In fact, so sure was Izquierdo that the abuse would continue, and so determined not to be bothered with it, that he severed immediately all lines of communication between himself and his daughter and her mother.
Again, in the U.S., it became the boy's responsibility to save his sister and himself when his mother attempted to commit suicide with a knife on a day in December 2005, in the very bedroom where his sister was sleeping.
"I started crying and screaming. Please stop. Please stop," he recounted. "After 25 seconds, I stopped crying and got angry, and I said, "If you are going to do this, please call the police first."
She did call the police, so that they would take her children away. She had already spent months trying to give them away to acquaintances and strangers.
The birth mother was present in the courtroom during most of her birth son's testimony but was finally led away it in an apoplexy of tears.
Outside the courtroom, she read a letter to her son, where she again admitted abusing him and excused herself on the grounds that she didn't know better because it was part of the "culture of abuse" in which she herself had been raised. I wonder who schooled her on the politically-correct language which she used to justify her abuse? No doubt the same people (Izquierdo's lawyers) that presented her with fake letters from Izquierdo to submit as evidence of his concern for his daughter or asked her to provide them with photographs of the child so that Izquierdo could claim that he ever asked her for any.
By surrendering custody of her son and consenting to his adoption by José and María Cubas — the only thing she ever did for him besides not aborting him — Elena Pérez will have no further contact with her son and his words are the last that she will ever hear from him, or at least the last that she deserves to hear. He is save from her now, protected by parents who can give him something which she never could — love. Still, in his noble child's heart, he admitted that in some corner of it he still loved her.
But he can afford to love her from afar. His sister is not as lucky. She is not out of her mother's reach yet. The birth father Rafael Izquierdo has said that if he is given custody of her, he will not deny the mother access to her. On the contrary he promises to share custody with her in Cuba. The mother herself has said that she will herself return to the island the moment that her daughter does.
So what, exactly, makes this case such a difficult one for Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen to decide? Well, the evidence so far all tilts in one direction, and she has to find a way to make it tilt the other way. Each day that becomes even more difficult. In the end Judge Cohen may even be forced to do the right thing because she will have no other viable option. Let us hope so.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Babalú and Stuck on the Palmetto: Birds of a Feather
Cuba to me is that defenseless 4-year old refugee girl named Elenita, not "Eliana," who has been fighting for her life virtually from the day that she was born. She represents the innocence and the suffering of our country. Abused by her mother and father, preyed upon by the despoilers of our country and even abandoned by Cuban exiles too weary or jaded to fight for her life, she is the personification of our belovèd homeland. To save her is the duty of every Cuban. Whoever turns her back on her is unworthy to call himself a Cuban or, indeed, a natural human being. It is that simple. By their reaction to her the patriots and the traitors sort themselves.
You don't have to guess, then, what I think about Henry Gómez or Alex of SotP, who are not only clamoring to drop her down Castro's well but who also advocated — both of them — the return of Elián to Cuba. They are to me the polarities of evil, the Damon and Pythias of "Cuban/'American-Cuban'" bloggers, one trying to destroy the eternal Cuba from the right and the other from the left.
Then we have Val and Rick. I used to think that despite his ignorance, obtuseness and insincerity, Val Prieto at least had a heart and that it would lead him right at times even when all else failed him. I based this opinion on the fact that he did express his desire once that this little girl be allowed to remain in the U.S., whereas Henry adamantly and indignantly refused to even say that much, more concerned with not being "used" by The Miami Herald than with saving the little girl's life. Now I know, by Val's own confession, that he is no better than Henry or Alex; worst, perhaps, because at least they had the conviction to avow their craven position from the first. On the Wednesday before last week's Balabú [Faux] Radio Hour, in a dismissive tone that would do justice to any executioner, Val said that if the little girl were ordered returned to Cuba, then so be it, because the guy, after all, is her father! And if her father wanted to rape her physically as he is doing spiritually, would that also be alright with Val, because, after all, he is her father? Val said something else that disturbed me — that he had never written a word on behalf of Elián because the subject was too "painful" for him. I bet it was a lot more painful for Elián.
So what do we have here: three Cubans and three moral reprobates, who have at least this in common — an absolute indifference to the life and future of defenseless children who happen to be also Castro's quarry. What should we make of this? For starters, that they have absolutely no human empathy or fellow feeling for our countrymen; and if they cannot even summon some degree of compassion for these helpless abused children, what may other Cubans who are not children expect from them?
Then there is Rick of SotP, the professional unCuban. I don't care what Rick thinks about Elián or this abused little girl. Anglos are not my judges as they are Henry's. This particular Anglo hates all Cubans who ever ventured outside of Cuba, including, we suspect, his houseboy at SotP. His racism and bigotry are as American and as disgusting as apple pie. He is undoubtedly the biggest basher of Cuban exiles on the blogosphere (other than those who are actually paid for the service). Although his disdain for Cubans is real and known to everybody, he is forever denying it. What he cannot deny, however, is his obsession with them. Indeed, his blog depends on Cuban exiles for its very existence because it is only posts about Cuba or Cubans that evoke the attention of SotP's readers. The other posts on SotP are virtual ghost towns, erected and maintained for the purpose of not seeming to be a Cuban-themed blog since the New Times requires "diversity" — even Rick's strange take on it — in order to bestow its worthless imprimatur as "Best Local Blog."
Val's ignorance is more dangerous than Rick's bigotry, which is also better contained in narrower bounds; but Val's ignorance could be remedied some day, perhaps by reading a book; Rick's bigotry, never.
And there you have them all in all their "glory" — the major players in the "Babalú-SotP" flame war, which I have dubbed the "War of the T-Shirts." They deserve one another and are more incestuously bound than anyone suspects.
How, then, could I choose between them now that they have ostensibly declared war on each other? All that I can say is that whatever the outcome, I, for one, will rejoice at the defeat of one while at the same time lamenting the victory of the other.
You don't have to guess, then, what I think about Henry Gómez or Alex of SotP, who are not only clamoring to drop her down Castro's well but who also advocated — both of them — the return of Elián to Cuba. They are to me the polarities of evil, the Damon and Pythias of "Cuban/'American-Cuban'" bloggers, one trying to destroy the eternal Cuba from the right and the other from the left.
Then we have Val and Rick. I used to think that despite his ignorance, obtuseness and insincerity, Val Prieto at least had a heart and that it would lead him right at times even when all else failed him. I based this opinion on the fact that he did express his desire once that this little girl be allowed to remain in the U.S., whereas Henry adamantly and indignantly refused to even say that much, more concerned with not being "used" by The Miami Herald than with saving the little girl's life. Now I know, by Val's own confession, that he is no better than Henry or Alex; worst, perhaps, because at least they had the conviction to avow their craven position from the first. On the Wednesday before last week's Balabú [Faux] Radio Hour, in a dismissive tone that would do justice to any executioner, Val said that if the little girl were ordered returned to Cuba, then so be it, because the guy, after all, is her father! And if her father wanted to rape her physically as he is doing spiritually, would that also be alright with Val, because, after all, he is her father? Val said something else that disturbed me — that he had never written a word on behalf of Elián because the subject was too "painful" for him. I bet it was a lot more painful for Elián.
So what do we have here: three Cubans and three moral reprobates, who have at least this in common — an absolute indifference to the life and future of defenseless children who happen to be also Castro's quarry. What should we make of this? For starters, that they have absolutely no human empathy or fellow feeling for our countrymen; and if they cannot even summon some degree of compassion for these helpless abused children, what may other Cubans who are not children expect from them?
Then there is Rick of SotP, the professional unCuban. I don't care what Rick thinks about Elián or this abused little girl. Anglos are not my judges as they are Henry's. This particular Anglo hates all Cubans who ever ventured outside of Cuba, including, we suspect, his houseboy at SotP. His racism and bigotry are as American and as disgusting as apple pie. He is undoubtedly the biggest basher of Cuban exiles on the blogosphere (other than those who are actually paid for the service). Although his disdain for Cubans is real and known to everybody, he is forever denying it. What he cannot deny, however, is his obsession with them. Indeed, his blog depends on Cuban exiles for its very existence because it is only posts about Cuba or Cubans that evoke the attention of SotP's readers. The other posts on SotP are virtual ghost towns, erected and maintained for the purpose of not seeming to be a Cuban-themed blog since the New Times requires "diversity" — even Rick's strange take on it — in order to bestow its worthless imprimatur as "Best Local Blog."
Val's ignorance is more dangerous than Rick's bigotry, which is also better contained in narrower bounds; but Val's ignorance could be remedied some day, perhaps by reading a book; Rick's bigotry, never.
And there you have them all in all their "glory" — the major players in the "Babalú-SotP" flame war, which I have dubbed the "War of the T-Shirts." They deserve one another and are more incestuously bound than anyone suspects.
How, then, could I choose between them now that they have ostensibly declared war on each other? All that I can say is that whatever the outcome, I, for one, will rejoice at the defeat of one while at the same time lamenting the victory of the other.
POSTSCRIPT:
Mambo Watch is in complete agreement with Val, Henry, Alex & Rick on "Elenita" and has come to roost with them.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei
The people have spoken. Vox populi, vox dei. Na. However, I am grateful to all who have so far participated in the voting. This has been our most popular poll to date, garnering 50 votes already and counting. It even exceeded our legendary "Is Posada a Hero?" poll, where all 40 participants voted in the affirmative because they could here.
By a 2:1 plurality, which held throughout the voting, readers of this blog have concluded that I am less disgusted with Stuck on the Palmetto than with Babalú blog and should side (however disgusted) with the winner against the loser of the poll. I am not convinced. Sometimes the ice that is above the water is only the tip of an iceberg which is leagues deep. Do not be guided by appearances; dive beneath the surface; for there is the answer.
In the matter of Babalú vs. Stuck on the Palmetto, now locked in an internecine struggle, I have decided that I cannot in good conscience ally myself with either against the other, but should continue my disdainful neutrality towards the belligerents.
Since I believe that I owe my readers an explanation for going against their expressed wishes, I shall publish shortly my full and complete opinion of both blogs and their principals. After reading it, I am sure that you will approve of the course I have undertaken. You will also have an even lower opinion of both parties.
By a 2:1 plurality, which held throughout the voting, readers of this blog have concluded that I am less disgusted with Stuck on the Palmetto than with Babalú blog and should side (however disgusted) with the winner against the loser of the poll. I am not convinced. Sometimes the ice that is above the water is only the tip of an iceberg which is leagues deep. Do not be guided by appearances; dive beneath the surface; for there is the answer.
In the matter of Babalú vs. Stuck on the Palmetto, now locked in an internecine struggle, I have decided that I cannot in good conscience ally myself with either against the other, but should continue my disdainful neutrality towards the belligerents.
Since I believe that I owe my readers an explanation for going against their expressed wishes, I shall publish shortly my full and complete opinion of both blogs and their principals. After reading it, I am sure that you will approve of the course I have undertaken. You will also have an even lower opinion of both parties.
Sticking by his Sugar Daddy
It is always heartening to see a son come to the defense of his father. Michael Craig, who is 38-years old but has been Senator Larry Craig's son for less than a year, that is, since the senator legally adopted him after marrying his mother, also last year, has not only shown his devotion to the senator by changing his name to "Craig," but has told the Idaho Press Tribune, when asked about his father's recent escapades in a Minneapolis airport men's room, that, although at first he had his (understandable) doubts and asked his father "a lot of tough questions, I saw in his eyes that everything he was telling me was the truth. When you look in your parents' eyes, you can tell when they're telling the truth. After that conversation, I was 100 percent sure."
In an age when children are often indifferent about their lifelong parents it certainly restores one's faith in mankind to know that a son that Larry Craig picked up along the way last year when the confirmed bachelor finally married, has so completely attached himself to him that he can read his eyes as if they were mirrors to his soul.
No one now, I think, can doubt the human qualities of the senator, much less believe his confession or give any credence to his guilty plea.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_ID_BRF_Craig_Son.html
In an age when children are often indifferent about their lifelong parents it certainly restores one's faith in mankind to know that a son that Larry Craig picked up along the way last year when the confirmed bachelor finally married, has so completely attached himself to him that he can read his eyes as if they were mirrors to his soul.
No one now, I think, can doubt the human qualities of the senator, much less believe his confession or give any credence to his guilty plea.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_ID_BRF_Craig_Son.html
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Ten-Part Series on "Che" Guevara's Life to Air on PBS Affiliate "V-Me" TV
Beginning on Tuesday, September 4, V-Me Media Inc., launched earlier this year in a for-profit partnership between the non-profit PBS and the Baeza Group, headed by Wall Street investment banker and longtime Castro supporter Mario Baeza, will air a 10-part homage to Ernesto "Che" Guevara entitled Chasing Che, described in promos as an "adventure and discovery series," produced by National Geographic and based on Patrick Symmes' 1999 book of the same name, which recreated Guevara's 13,000 mile trek across South America chronicled in the best-selling and much-hyped Motorcycle Diaries. In the V-Me docudrama, two young men will retrace Symmes and his friend's journey in search of "Che" and his friend Alberto Granados' tracks 55 years after their 1952 excursion (which ended for Granados in the leprosarium where Guevara abandoned him).
So great is the Guevara cult, or, rather, the cultists' obsession with him, that it is not enough to bring his Motorcycle Diaries to the big screen, but a few years after the release of the film there is now a 10-part series dedicated, essentially, to annotating the book and the film. Since it chronicles at best a vestigial incident in Guevara's eventful life, it is well to ask why it is necessary to recycle continually his pre-revolutionary vagabond days and not his more adventurous time as a guerrilla in the Cuban Revolution or as an improvised jack-of-all-trades in its aftermath, not to mention his other later adventure in South America, the one that ended his life. The reason is very simple: this is the only "Che" that could engage the viewer's sympathy, after, of course, you have deleted the innate racism that infuses his diary from beginning to end, his disdain for the indigenous peoples of the Americas whom he would later claim he wanted to "liberate" from bigots who thought exactly as he did all his life.
This early "Che" because he is young and mischievous and never goes beyond plotting to kill people rather than actually killing them, is certainly more "simpatico" than the other "Che," the historical "Che," if you will, the "Che" who spent 3 years in Cuba formulating theoretical guerrilla tactics but doing almost no actual fighting; the "Che" who was the Revolution's chief executioner; the "Che" who wrecked Cuba's economy and immersed the country in 48 years (and counting) of misery and want; the "Che" who shot himself in the head "accidentally" when informed of the Bay of Pigs landing; the "Che" whose highest aspiration was to produce men like himself who were "efficient killing machines;" the "Che" who went like a lamb to slaughter at Fidel Castro's orders and singing his praises, Erwin Rommel without the field marshal's act of rebellion or military genius. This "Che" is not a good subject for a hagiographic biopic. However much you focus the camera on headshots, the screams and the gore in the background wouldn't do much for his myth. So it is best to continue to concentrate on his boyhood or near-boyhood rumps as a hobo and genial con man, on which you can dab as much idealism as you want and suggest that his later conduct in Cuba and elsewhere will reflect and magnify that early idealism. The perceptive reader, of course, will detect, despite the deletions, the real "Che" in his Motorcycles Diaries, for a homicidal maniac doesn't just evolve overnight; there is, in fact, a long incubation process which went into making him the ogre he became. In the film and documentary, of course, "Che" can be recreated as the prototype for the Revolution's "New Man" by suppressing everything which "Che" himself says that does not conform to their pre-fabricated image (icon?) of him. Both the film and documentary are very good at this; that is, they are a hoax perpetrated for the benefit of the faithful, a non-fiction Da Vinci Code, as it were.
The content of this 10-part documentary -- and we will continue to highlight its length, since no contemporary historical figure has ever been accorded 2½ months of "indepth" coverage on television -- can well be imagined from the alliance of the "usual suspects" which produced it: PBS, which never encountered a pro-Castro documentary that it wouldn't sponsor or air; Mario Baeza, an Afro-Cuban billionaire who made his money in "the belly of the monster" but credits Castro's "liberation of blacks" for his success in life [note to Baeza: your ancestors were liberated in 1886]; National Geographic, which looks on "Che" Guevara as Nature's noblest creation whose "mythical status may have been borne out of his steadfast idealism and spirit of self-sacrifice;" and the author of the book and docudrama, Englishman Patrick Symmes, who retraced "Che's" footsteps in South America as a latter-day "Via Crucis" culminating in his reburial in Cuba in 1997 and who dedicated his book Chasing Che "For gusanos everywhere." Can anyone imagine someone dedicating a panegyric of Himmler "To kikes everywhere"? Of course, as Oliphant's recent cartoon has illustrated, Cuban exiles are the only group left whom the inventors of political correctness still consider as acceptable targets for their racism and whose suffering it is still acceptable to mock and demean in the media.
"With Chasing Che, V-Me TV fulfills its mission to U.S. Latinos — with innovative programming that reveals new perspectives and information," said Mario Baeza, founder and executive chairman of the PBS-partnered station.
H/T to the late Jorge Más Canosa, who torpedoed Clinton's nomination of Mario Baeza in 1993 for the post of Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
So great is the Guevara cult, or, rather, the cultists' obsession with him, that it is not enough to bring his Motorcycle Diaries to the big screen, but a few years after the release of the film there is now a 10-part series dedicated, essentially, to annotating the book and the film. Since it chronicles at best a vestigial incident in Guevara's eventful life, it is well to ask why it is necessary to recycle continually his pre-revolutionary vagabond days and not his more adventurous time as a guerrilla in the Cuban Revolution or as an improvised jack-of-all-trades in its aftermath, not to mention his other later adventure in South America, the one that ended his life. The reason is very simple: this is the only "Che" that could engage the viewer's sympathy, after, of course, you have deleted the innate racism that infuses his diary from beginning to end, his disdain for the indigenous peoples of the Americas whom he would later claim he wanted to "liberate" from bigots who thought exactly as he did all his life.
This early "Che" because he is young and mischievous and never goes beyond plotting to kill people rather than actually killing them, is certainly more "simpatico" than the other "Che," the historical "Che," if you will, the "Che" who spent 3 years in Cuba formulating theoretical guerrilla tactics but doing almost no actual fighting; the "Che" who was the Revolution's chief executioner; the "Che" who wrecked Cuba's economy and immersed the country in 48 years (and counting) of misery and want; the "Che" who shot himself in the head "accidentally" when informed of the Bay of Pigs landing; the "Che" whose highest aspiration was to produce men like himself who were "efficient killing machines;" the "Che" who went like a lamb to slaughter at Fidel Castro's orders and singing his praises, Erwin Rommel without the field marshal's act of rebellion or military genius. This "Che" is not a good subject for a hagiographic biopic. However much you focus the camera on headshots, the screams and the gore in the background wouldn't do much for his myth. So it is best to continue to concentrate on his boyhood or near-boyhood rumps as a hobo and genial con man, on which you can dab as much idealism as you want and suggest that his later conduct in Cuba and elsewhere will reflect and magnify that early idealism. The perceptive reader, of course, will detect, despite the deletions, the real "Che" in his Motorcycles Diaries, for a homicidal maniac doesn't just evolve overnight; there is, in fact, a long incubation process which went into making him the ogre he became. In the film and documentary, of course, "Che" can be recreated as the prototype for the Revolution's "New Man" by suppressing everything which "Che" himself says that does not conform to their pre-fabricated image (icon?) of him. Both the film and documentary are very good at this; that is, they are a hoax perpetrated for the benefit of the faithful, a non-fiction Da Vinci Code, as it were.
The content of this 10-part documentary -- and we will continue to highlight its length, since no contemporary historical figure has ever been accorded 2½ months of "indepth" coverage on television -- can well be imagined from the alliance of the "usual suspects" which produced it: PBS, which never encountered a pro-Castro documentary that it wouldn't sponsor or air; Mario Baeza, an Afro-Cuban billionaire who made his money in "the belly of the monster" but credits Castro's "liberation of blacks" for his success in life [note to Baeza: your ancestors were liberated in 1886]; National Geographic, which looks on "Che" Guevara as Nature's noblest creation whose "mythical status may have been borne out of his steadfast idealism and spirit of self-sacrifice;" and the author of the book and docudrama, Englishman Patrick Symmes, who retraced "Che's" footsteps in South America as a latter-day "Via Crucis" culminating in his reburial in Cuba in 1997 and who dedicated his book Chasing Che "For gusanos everywhere." Can anyone imagine someone dedicating a panegyric of Himmler "To kikes everywhere"? Of course, as Oliphant's recent cartoon has illustrated, Cuban exiles are the only group left whom the inventors of political correctness still consider as acceptable targets for their racism and whose suffering it is still acceptable to mock and demean in the media.
"With Chasing Che, V-Me TV fulfills its mission to U.S. Latinos — with innovative programming that reveals new perspectives and information," said Mario Baeza, founder and executive chairman of the PBS-partnered station.
H/T to the late Jorge Más Canosa, who torpedoed Clinton's nomination of Mario Baeza in 1993 for the post of Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
