It just doesn't work. I've tried but I just can't make it happen. What I am trying to do is create a knight's name for Val. Since Henry Gómez now claims that Val Prieto went to Killcastro's blog to defend a damsel's honor, I thought that it would be appropriate to knight him for it. Sadly, his name is the most inappropriate for such an investiture. The only possible translation of it is "Val the Black Knight," for that is what prieto means -- black as in evil (let me clarify that lest the Rev. Jeremiah Wright call me a racist). And there's the rub, my friends: I can't make Val the hero of his own fairy tell because black knights are always the villains and I am nobody to challenge that centuries-old tradition. So, for once in my life, I cannot translate my ideas into words. Pity, for I had outlined quite an allegory, which might have brought back the Age of Chivalry. Instead, I must content myself with the unbarnished facts.
Killcastro and Ziva have a long history which has been characterized more by mutual respect and affinities than by antagonism. They are very blunt with each other, no doubt. Theirs is the kind of familiar bluntness which only follows a long friendship and which can never exist unless buttressed by such a friendship. An exchange of obscenities between them must be seen in that light. No one has the right, least of all the cause of their present strife, to interject himself in something which is none of his business. Ziva doesn't need to be "saved from Killcastro." No one has influenced more her thinking on Cuba than Killcastro. Ideologically, she is closer to Killcastro than Val and she is also closer to the real interests of the Cuban people even though she does not even have Val's 3 years of residence on the island. Ziva is always ready to support those in the most compromised positions, whether Posada Carriles or Elenita. The very people from whom the other Babalunians flee as from the plague, Ziva, indifferent to the fallout, will champion. That is why I once said that she was the conscience of Babalú. That, too, distinguishes her from Val Prieto and Henry Gómez. She knows this herself but is too invested in Babalú to let go. Perhaps she fears how much worse Babalú would become without her. In fact, I have no doubt it would be much worse. However, Ziva would be a much better Ziva without them.
Val did not go to Killcastro to defend Ziva. He doesn't even mention her name in his comment and it is very difficult to "defend" someone without even naming him:
"I hadnt come here in months until today and I see that nothing has changed. [KillCastro] the pathetic little whiny bitch shitting on his own and libeling me, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Let me tell you something [KillCastro], one of these days, youre gonna have to own up to all those disparaging remarks youve made about me in person. On that day you wont have anonymity nor the use of the CAPS key. And on that day we'll see how well you carry those two little raisins you call balls. Up the prozac, man. If youre out, call tellechea, or vana, or whatever sock puppet he's using that day, Im sure he's got plenty." -- Val Prieto, Killcastro blog, March 26, 2008 12:20:00 PM
It is also incredibly condescending and entirely unnecessary to "defend" Ziva from Killcastro or anybody else. She is in a better position intellectually and in every other way to defend Val than Val is to defend her. And if she does defend him, it is more from loyalty than conviction.
No, Val's visit to Babalú had nothing to do with Ziva. Henry's historical revisionism cannot obscure that fact for a moment. What, then, brought Val to Killcastro's blog after what he claimed was the longest time? Val makes no secret of it. He tells Killcastro that he has come to his blog to blow his cover and then proceeds to do so. That's the beauty of Val's thinking: it is so shallow and hence so transparent. He is innept even at being a villain because he takes absolutely no care to hide his hand. It is there for all to see. Concealment is the shame of traitors. But Val doesn't even have that. His dagger is out in broad daylight and before the eyes of everybody. Then, having done what he did -- the most dastardly act that one can commit against a fellow Cuban -- he retreats in silence to his covert (because, really, what could he say in his defense?) and lets Henry spread disinformation about the proceedings at Killcastro as if these were not available for all to see. In marked contrast, I may say, to Henry's "Squashing the Losers" post which has already been deleted from Babalú (but can still be read here and elsewhere). We should consider this to be a retraction of Henry's mendacious allegations about Val "defending Ziva." It is also, of course, more proof that Babalú cannot be trusted about anything; that it does know the meaning of fair play; and that it mimics the totalitarians that it condemns.
No more lies or evasions from them. What matters, the only thing that matters, is the safety of Killcastro's family which has already been compromised by Val's inexcusable and unprecedented outing of him on Killcastro's own blog. The focus should be on that betrayal of trust and nothing else. Then his own culpable silence and Henry's bootless excuses will become perfectly understandable. What I will never understand, however, is how otherwise decent men and women can consent with their silence to what amounts to a public lynching. But "decent" people used to attend those in droves once upon a time. Many came right after Sunday services with their kids and even had picnics around the bonfire.