Good news from Killcastro on his family's fate. In Cuba even a broken skull is good news when that is as far as injustice goes.
A great weight has been lifted from Killcastro's mind. Val Prieto should also feel extremely grateful that the evil he wreaked has been circumscribed.
Killcastro quotes what a Spanish priest once told him: "Only the prayers that we say on behalf of others are ever answered." I also believe that is true.
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/
anyone told bonehead Val?
ReplyDeleteNice script for a Holywood movie
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteHollywood doesn't make movies about heroic anti-Castro Cubans.
Yes KC is safe. Now the question is how safe is Val.
ReplyDeleteMAT,
ReplyDeleteWhat about "Lost City?"
John:
ReplyDeleteSafe for now. Or, more accurately, not in danger at this moment. In Cuba, no one is safe and nothing is certain.
Hollywood doesn't make movies about heroic anti-Castro Cubans.
ReplyDeleteEs una novela de ficcion lo que escribe Kill Castro acerca de su familia. Very nice one
John:
ReplyDeleteThe less said about Lost City the better. Its "heroes" were all castristas arrepentidos (ex-Castroites) and the villain for most of the movie was Batista, not Fidel. Killcastro and Charlie Bravo wrote very incisively on that movie when it was released. Of course, the Babalunians loved it. Not knowing anything about Cuban history certainly makes it more palatable.
rin tin tin:
ReplyDeleteBut of course. Things like that don't happen in Cuba just in the movies.
Just wanted to thank everyone who has been so INCREDIBLY supportive during these days. I want to especially thank Mr. Tellechea for his compassion, his complete support from the second he heard what happened, for opening his blog to releasing full information of what and how it happened.
ReplyDeleteWe also know WHO was the principal enabler in this tragedy. No threats are necessary.
Killcastro,
ReplyDeleteOf course no one would be reckless enough to make a threat against anyone here. Nevertheless, i suspect that there are people who have read or will read about this "chivato" and his followers that they may feel the need to address this "outing" personally in the future.
Nevertheless, i am glad that your family is safe for the time being.
So full of it both of you
ReplyDeleteMAT,
ReplyDeleteI watched the "Lost City" several times, and came away scratching my head, with a conflicted feeling.
I found myself very empathetic with the rebels "at the beginning." As is it natural against any totalarian ruler. Particularly if i were in the "have nots" of Batista's Cuba.
However, the second part of the movie also illicited the exact opposite feelings. In that i sided against the rebellion. And the way they conducted themselves after they took over Cuba. Particularly when they started stealing the land, and taking over clubs.
In retrospect, Lost City could have been more balance to reflect Castro's brutal reign. Aas you observed, "Lost City tended to focus more on Batista."
It does surprise me that Val and Henry did not notice such an imbalance, unlike KC and CB. Perhaps, one has to be a Cuban "from Cuba" to have notice that Lost City was lacking.
Or perhaps "chivatos" like Val and Henry were secretly relieved that Castro's horrors were not profiled.
I am glad that this soap opera has finally come to an end. Now Manuel will have to find something else to continue his obsession with Val, Henry and Babalu. ¿Será un problema sexual de Manolo?
ReplyDeleteRegarding The Lost City, the fact cannot be ignored that without Batista, there could have never been a Castro.
Batista gave Castro the opportunity that he would have never had if the constitutional process had not been interrupted on March 10, 1952.
Castro would have never been elected president of Cuba.
The Lost City presented Batista as the coward and corrupt leader that he was; presented Castro as a traitor to the Cuban people, and che Guevara as a common criminal.
It was not a documentary and as such it didn't portray everything exactly as it happened, but it was pretty close.
Castro would have never been elected president of Cuba.
ReplyDeleteWell, this is news to me.
When exactly was Fidel Castro "elected" president of Cuba?
Castro elected? Came to power because of Batista?
ReplyDeleteCoño, are we to assume that castro is not a power hungry villian who forced his way into power regardless of the foe ---real or manipulated. I seem to recall chants that were, "Cuba si Yanqui no," thus it was more than Batista that put castro into power as it is more than the US and the so called embargo. Castro put himself into power period, and was a tiroteo to anyone who stood in his way.
Perhaps we can modernize ¿armas, para que? to ¿Sesos, para que?
SAY NO TO CENSORSHIP ON THIS BLOG
ReplyDeleteThank God KC'S family is ok, I trully was worried for them, at least now they are home with their loved one.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Lost City, piece of crap, we were quite dissapointed with the movie, the whole thing degenerated into a ridiculous love story, Andy would have done better leaving that out, mu husband and I totally disliked it.
Manuel, it appears that Cuba was way better off during the Batista years and it seems many Cubans who made the mistake of supporting Castro will not acknowledge that because that might be to painful. I really don't know, I wasn't born there, only heard stories. Can you tell us all in an article why you believe Cuba fell to the state it is in now and whose fault you think it is? Thanks I would be curious to read it.I enjoy reading your articles. I also stopped posting at babalu awhile ago bc I didn't like a response I received. Have you ever thought of writing a book?
ReplyDeleteMaT,
ReplyDeleteI would second that request, I would love to read an essay written by you about the reasons for Castro's takeover. I keep telling people to beware of new, charismatic politicians that promise you the world (Obama?) and promise CHANGE . . .
Vana and Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYes, that could certainly be the subject of a book. Every adult who was alive in Cuba at that time shares the blame, whether by acts of commission or omission. But, ultimately, it was not the Cuban people who put Fidel in power. He would have remained just one of hundreds of gangsters except for his padroni in the United States -- the Eisenhower State Department and The New York Times.
Anonymous @ 12:27 PM:
ReplyDeleteThe long "cut & paste" which you inserted here from Spain's El Mundo on human sexuality has been remanded to The RCAB Madhouse where you can visit it at any time:
http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com/2007/07/madhouse-for-stupidly-insane-and.html
You'll have to "cut & paste" the URL.
I never said that Castro was elected president of Cuba, you did.
ReplyDeleteWhat I said was that if Batista had not interrupted the democratic process in Cuba, the only way that Castro could have gained power was by being elected president, and there wasn't the slightest chance of that happening.
Batista was the first president to legalize Cuba's Communist party (Partido Socilista Popular). And by overthrowing Carlos Prio and establishing a dictatorship, he gave Castro the opportunity to mount a popular revolt against him and gain the popularity that he never had before. Batista had Castro arrested after the attack to the Moncada barracks, but set him free after only 2 years. On the other hand, Batista was responsible for the murder of hundreds of Cubans, some of them very well known and respected like Pelayo Cuervo Navarro.
And then he chickened out and left in a hurry, causing the entire infrastructure of the Cuban government, the armed forces, and the Judicial system to collapse, and allowing Castro to come in and fill the vacuum with his own people.
As to MAT writing a book about Batista and the reason for Castro's takeover, I can already see what he would say: Blame Henry Gomez's grandfather for urging Batista to overthrow Prio and Val Prieto's grandfather for building the boat used by Castro to travel from Mexico to Cuba. And he will also blame Miguelito Valdes, the original Mr. Babalu, for singing songs encouraging the Cuban people to support Castro. Remember, this man is obsessed. ;)
ms. calabaza,
ReplyDeleteFear not my dear, and take a deep breath. America will never elect a man who from a pro-immigration party in 2008. Especially a black man who will surely select a Spanish speaking man as a vice president.
Once Obama and Richardson began to attack Lou Dobbs from CNN as a Spanish immigrant bashing bigot, that immediately made them both unelectable.
Mind you that is not my belief system talking. This is what i am hearing at my dinner table, and social gatherings from my new state in the midwest of America.
The interior of this nation is horrified and increasingly violent when they hear Spanish being spoken among them. And as prices from milk, to gasoline, and insurance begin to rise. They naturally begin to look for scapegoats, i.e., anybody who looks or speaks Spanish, legal or illegal, Cuban or Mexican it all sounds the same to the untrained eye and ear. And mind you the backlash is only picking up steam, as America cotinues on her permanent and steep decline.
It used to be that black-americans were scapegoated. But their numbers are not big enough to be of concern. In fact black-americans are increasingly on the decline, at least in the midwest.
Nevertheless, it amuses me how terrified the Cuban community is of Obama. And conversely, how terrified the white community is of the Spanish-speaking community, even the hard-working Spanish immigrants. Included in the fear is the distinct possiblity of a Spanish speaking vice president in Richardson. It is not Obama that is necessarily feared. It is immigration, as well as a Spanish-speaking man that has an opportunity to pierce the White House for the first time in American history. And the end of English America, replaced with the beginning of Spanish America. Note: i know it was Spanish before English
I myself have long ago left the Democratic Party. Heeding the call as millions of others have from Lou Dobbs, to switch to the Independent Party. Hence, i do not support either Obama, nor Mccain.
Having said that, i can live with Mccain. At least middle-america can keep our beady little eyes on him. And blow the whistle if he does not adhere to an anti-immigrantion policy, which America demands. Obama and Richardson of course would have no such allegience to people like me.
Spanish speaking immigrants and the quiet fear of them, is why you will never see Obama sitting in the oval office. So all the Cuban-Americans can relax, and take a deep breath, as your nightmare will never occur.
John,
ReplyDeleteI've been an Independent since
1992. I have heard your theory from various friends . . . but I am concerned about just how unhappy the populace is right now. I agree this country is on the decline and if I thought for one second that Obama were the future, I'd be on the bandwagon.
I try to judge a candidate for what he has done; who he has associated with and how truthful he is being. All of that said, Obama has done nothing; I don't like his friends and although perhaps more truthful than Hillary, still sinning by omission, methinks.
As for Hillary, well no one has said it better than Charles Krauthammer in this morning's Washington Post. A great read and remember Krauthammer is a Harvard-educated psychiatrist.
That leaves McCain, who is not perfect but I think we know what we're getting.
The media is very powerful in a country where the average person gets their news in soundbites. The media is clearly in the tank for Obama. That is frightening to me and I don't believe that McCain has it in the bag because the Bush Administration is so disliked by the American people.
If you think I am the typical Cuban-American it probably has to do with a bit of PTSD that all of us have inherited from our parents who lost their homeland. We, John will not easily be swayed with "two cars in your garage and a chicken in your pot".
So Matt, what do your laser-like pasing skills tell you about louJIF's last post?
ReplyDeleteWhich light has he seen?
BTW, to insulate Batista from substantial responsibility for castro's opportunity in '57-'59 is disingenuous. It is generally agreed, IMO, that the "cure" has clearly been far worse than the "disease."
But if the patient had been truly healthy, he would have refused the medicine.
ms. calabaza,
ReplyDeleteYour writing is a little disjointed. But having re-read it several times, i think i culled what you attempted to say. Let me write a counter-argument in defense of Obama this time. As i like to dust off my past Democratic side from time to time.
1) As far as Obama's pastor. He gets a pass from me on that. Black folks have a right to be pissed off. I know things my family have said, and the undiscovered discrimintion that they have inflicted upon them caused a great deal of hurt. Compared that to the fact that Cuban-Americans still have justification to be pissed off at America for its actions/nonactions towards Cuba, as they often say so.
2) As for the Pastor's "God damn America for killing innocent people" remark. Well, the truth of the matter, it is in the bible. Thou shall not kill. America has killed directly/indirectly more people combined than any other nation on the earth. The Reverand should have used different words. But then again, we do live in a free speech nation, and it is not up to me to put the "proper" words in ones mouth. That would be the actions of a communist.
3) There is not doubt that Obama posseses far superior intellect than Mccain. Mccain who gradurated at the bottom of the Navy Academy, and but for his father who was an Admiral, whould have academically flunked out, ala George Bush. This Mccain, who said, "he would have to read Greenspan's book to understand the economy." I guess it was the best the GOP could nominate.
4) I do not think for a moment that Obama is racist against me because i am white. I do think he has felt the sting of both white and black racism. And has some resentment against intolerance in both groups.
5) You are correct that the media is in the tank for Obama. But so what. God gave you a mind, and America gave you a constitution that gives you a choice to think freely and openly. Dont be horrified that the media is involved in group think. Embrace the ability to think indepdently of others. Even if it causes you hardships in your own community. Its fun, and exercises the mind to the sharpness of a sword.
6) As for your "typical Cuban" remark, a remark that would have been construed as racist if i had uttered it. Well no, i did not assume that you were a "typical Cuban." As you surely would be camped out in the intellecutal lazy blog of Babulu. An institution where "typical Cubans" go to frolic in their own ignorance, stupidity and quasi-communism group think.
7) As for the "two cars in the gararge, and a chicken in the pot" remark. Another 4-8 years of this "certain" American decline. You may not have a house to park two cars, nor chicken to put in the pot.
Respectfully,
John
John,
ReplyDeleteyou do not have to fear being called a racist by me. I am sick and tired of people having to walk on egg-shells and politically correct speech.
My explanation to you about the typical "Cuban American" was in answer to your comment:
"Nevertheless, it amuses me how terrified the Cuban community is of Obama."
I cannot speak for the Cuban community but I tried to explain to you what concerns me about Obama.
By the way, thank you for the complement about not being the typical Cuban frolicking at Babalu. It take that as a badge of honor.
John, I may disagree with you but that does not mean that we can't have a dialogue about it. Hell, some of my best friends are progressives! {cliche alert}. I enjoy reading other people's points of view and having a conversation about it without the name-calling and bullying that goes on in that other blog.
I respect MaT for giving us this forum to do so.
Thanks for your thoughts.
noone:
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with John being himself. I have long ago ceased my attempts to reform anybody because I relinquished the hope that I could. All that I can do is point out and correct mistakes for the record.
I wish you would speak with your usual candor and say what you really mean: Yes, I, too, wish that Batista had killed Castro in any of the numerous opportunities when he could have and did not.
Then, of course, Cubans would worship Fidel as some kind of martyr but would have been spared the martyrdom that he has imposed on them.
I wonder how many martyrs would have turned out exactly as Castro did but were mercifully stopped from becoming monsters because somebody's bullet stopped their evolution.
John:
ReplyDeleteI am very terrified of Obama. And you should be too. Not because he's black but because he's red.
ms. calabaza,
ReplyDeleteOk, i am glad that you dont think i am a racist. But i have many enemies that quietly and eargerily await an opportunity to pounce upon me.
See Nonee: So Matt, what do your laser-like pasing skills tell you about louJIF's last post? Which light has he seen?
Many people hate me in the Miami blogisphere, i have be banned throughout, impliedly and expressly. And i am not talking about banned, where i cant comment in blogs any more. I am talking about, the website not even loading on my computer. WTF!! If i am banned from commenting, ok fine with me. But for an adminstrator to take away the ability for me even to read the website, that is going to far. Specifically, the Miami Herald blog, and a nasty editor bitch who sent me nasty emails. Accusing me of racism, just because i said, "you cubans." When another Cuban commenter "a female" called me a nasty, pasty, ignorant, little, pinga gringo bastard. I will repost her snide ass reverse-racial comments against me at a later date!!
Nevertheless, i also commend MAT. I always support free-speech blogs, as they are rare when the topic is anything related to Miami. Which is a free-speech hating, quasi-communist city. And that is exactly why it is a failed city.
Mat , what kind of work do you do?
ReplyDeleteEn que trabajas, o eres retirado?
MAT,
ReplyDeleteSpeaking in riddles, which Nonee is doing is a common defect of Cuban-Americans. It is due to the verbal beat downs they recieve from their own kind if the deviate from the extreme exile script. Even of the internet where Nonee will not be discovered, he is still unable to partake in the freedoms which is America.
Sad, sad, sad
Mat, Val at Babalu has started asking for money para Cuba Nostalgia. Cuanto le has a mandar?
ReplyDeleteJohn:
ReplyDeleteThe "invasion" you fear will come. Nothing can hold it back. It is as inevitable as the rising sun and it will dawn at any time. I don't know what preparations you intend to take for this "invasion" -- move to Colorado, perhaps? -- but the U.S. government is not prepared for it; nor, indeed, could they hope to stop it. That is why George Bush and Bill Clinton before him did everything in their power to maintain Castro in power.
Well, MAT, candidly...
ReplyDeleteYes, in retrospect, not executing castro when he had the chance was perhaps his greatest error.
But you know very well that's not what I was saying. Criticism of Batista and his complicity (unknowing) in weakening Cuba for the horror that followed him is not a tacit absolution of the horror itself, nor even a mitigation in any sense. Please don't make it seem so with morally relativist insinuations.
louJIF, where is my riddle, joker? Just because you don't understand what I'm talking about...
ReplyDelete...from their own kind, louJIF? I thought those feelings were in the past.
none:
ReplyDeleteI don't see the moral relativism.
Batista abhorred bloodshed. The Sergeants' Revolt of 1933 as well as the 1952 coup were both bloodless. The 1959 Revolution with 184 casualties on both sides also was largely bloodless. Certainly, Batista could have bombed the Sierra Maestra and put a fast end to Castro's operetta revolution. He refused.
Castro, on the other hand, never had a minute's hesitation about killing friend or foe. 104,000 in 49 years and counting.
No, there is no comparison on a moral plane or any other plane between Batista and Castro.
MAT,
ReplyDeleteActually, you are correct on a couple of fronts. After 40 years of a two-bit tryant 90 miles from Miami maintaining power. There can be no doubt that America preferred Castro in power. Rather than, hundreds of thousands of Spanish immigrants from Cuba flooding Southflorida, ala Mariel Boatlift the squeal.
You are also correct, there is nothing America can do about immigration. As one can only quietly observe a once great superpower slip into a Latin American way of life. A way of life which will lead to untold harships, which is cutomary and acceptable among many Spanish immigrants.
But where your writing fails is your clumsy attmept to hide the obvious. By presenting a bankrupt argument, of commies here, and commies there as a reason why Bush's republican party must have several more terms in office. You insult the very notion that the most able man for the job should be President, regardless of the consequences or impact upon Cuba, or any other that nation for that matter.
You MAT, appear to argue that the very best man/woman can not be President, if he/she is unable to pass the Cuban exile litmus test. Hence, you would gladly give a destructive dummy like Bush a 3rd and 4th term, as long as he made Cuba a priority, even at the expense America's health and well-being. Not that America has much health left to give, after expending all of her engeries "concerned" about everyone except herself.
It is this same Republican Party, which have created leftist movements throughout the Latin America through neglect. As well, as the same Republican Party who lost the house, and senate in 2006 to leftists. As well, as shifting the nation to a hard left mentality.
And this is where the push-back begins. As leftist are seen as promoting pro-immigration. And the right-wing is seen as being against immigration, legal or illegal.
Hence the battle, and the sides that have been chosen!!
John:
ReplyDeleteYou have not been reading this blog consistently. I am not and have never been a supporter of George Bush.
None said: louJIF, where is my riddle, joker? Just because you don't understand what I'm talking about...
ReplyDeleteMAT didnt understand either, and had to ask for clarification. Your writing has decline since i last saw you. Divorce? Foreclosure? Drugs? Or just still plain ignorant?
I see John's moniker has been hijacked. Should I take the offending comment to The Madhouse, or let it stand and wait for John to disown it?
ReplyDeleteMAT, of course you don't see the moral relativism. It's like second nature to you. This is your blog so you can engage in "body count" analyses to your heart's content. But don't do it on my account. I've heard this from you before, and am willing to accept your relative analysis on its face. I try not to be in anyone's choir, but I will occasionally hum the tune. We have no quesrrel on who has been worse. That's not the point.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you cannot shroud Batista's responsibility (partial) in laying the predicate for what followed. True, his name could have been Perez or something else, and the result would have been the same. If we are to proceed with that logic, then you cannot credit him with the virtues of his tenure, which you readily espouse, as if by rote.
I do agree with you that Cubans generally bear the responsibility for allowing castro's pernicious anemia to so sicken a nation. But like all countries where al men are equal, some were more equal than others.
louJIF, I am not plain. I am Cuban.
ReplyDeleteLearn your boundaries, little man.
noone:
ReplyDeleteMoral relativism is too fine a concept for me to understand. I am a simple and uncomplicated man. I judge dictators by body counts.
MAT,
ReplyDeleteI know you are not pro-Bush. I know of no sane person left who is pro-Bush, even in my conservative family. Nevertheless, 20-25% diehards still remains, and those are the shot-callers. The same people who reduced the Cuban monies to USAID last week and gave them to European ex-communist, now NATO nations, in order to divert said monies right back into Bush's war-profittering buddies. Knowing that these buddies will divert those same Cuban ex-USAID monies back into Barbara and Jenna Bush's trust funds.
The Cuban exile community made the mistake of keeping too much money to themselves. And did not realize that economic times were getting too tight, and had to start kicking back more of the donated money. After all, Mccain is broke, in comparison to Obama.
Nevertheless, the only desk that will be cleaned out, is the one in the oval office. The apparatus will remain the same, and the same mindset that have basically ignored this historic opportunity in Cuban history, and perhaps let it slip away for another 40 years.
But, i understand from a Cuban position that Obama as a Democrat would be your worst nightmare. Obama might be like Carter who opened his arms up to the Cuban refugees, knowing it would hamper his chances for a 2nd term. Obama might be like LBJ who sanction the freedom flights, knowing also that it would hurt him with the American public. Obama might even be like JFK, who ignorantly thought the Cubans would rise up in the streets in Havana to fight alongside the Cuban exiles from Miami. "Wonder why and who told Kennedy that Cuban exiles would be greeted as liberators."
Yes, the adminstration shot-callers are diverting vital Cuban exile aide to their own campaign coffers. I can see how this is probably more acceptable to you and other Cubans, than would be the nightmare of "another" Democratic President actually doing more than simply "talking" about Cuba.
Yah MAT, as a Cuban, i can see where the "talk" from Bush and his uncaring adminstration is preferable, to any of these past Democratic Presidents. Shame on them for not "talking" like Bush. No what is ashame is that they get crucified for trying, from the Cuban community. And Bush get cheered, for standing there "talking."
If i were Obama's advisor, i would advise him not to shit towards Cuba. That way Obama can reach great heights of popularity within the Cuban community. As it appears that talk is what is honored and respected, rather than attempts, even failed attempts.
Yes MAT, if it were only that. But you stop at saying all body counts are bad.
ReplyDeleteMat
ReplyDeleteWhich comment to own or disown? Post it please.
Manuel:
ReplyDeleteSend ALL hijackers straight to The Madhouse.
First, i have reread the post. And i have not been hijacked. I suspect MAT knows this. But the brutal "truth" is just too painful to bare.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, and before MAT begins scrubbing my truthful, and unoffensive post.
Questions that i have:
1) Do the Cubans on the island fear Obama, or just the exile community
2) If the question is Cuba's freedom, than shouldnt their voices be heard in regards to Obama
3) If the Cuban islanders shouldnt be heard, why not
4) Who is the bigger monster, one who denies visit to dying family members like Bush, or one who gives permission to go visit
5) Whose place is it to say where man can go and cant go, isnt this God's world
MAT didnt understand either, and had to ask for clarification. Your writing has decline since i last saw you. Divorce Foreclosure? Drugs? Or just still plain ignorant?
ReplyDeleteJohn:
I am sure that you could not possibly have authored this comment: it is so crass and illiterate.
That is why I know you will want to disavow it and condemn the culprit who hijacked your moniker to make it.
noone:
ReplyDeleteIt a peculiar coincidence that the greatest body counts belong to totalitarians of the left.
If it were otherwise, I should have to revise my formula to say: "I judge dictators by the number of innocent people that they kill."
You've gone to your happy place again, MAT. I will go beat my head against a wall. They don't move.
ReplyDeletelouJIF, please refrain from implying that MAT doesn't understand something. That kind of talk will get you banished to Madhouse.
MAT, sometimes we forget this isn't MCC. The power of nostalgia...
I said: MAT didnt understand either, and had to ask for clarification. Your writing has decline since i last saw you. Divorce Foreclosure? Drugs? Or just still plain ignorant?
ReplyDeleteUpon further reflection with a more critical and focused eye. I indeed recognize that my post was crass. Therefore, i apologize to Nonee. And will refrain from further reference to Nonee as described above.
Sincerely,
John
Nonee,
ReplyDeleteMat asked you to stop talking in riddles. And just to say what was on your mind.
See MAT's statement: I wish you would speak with your usual candor and say what you really mean:
I merely agreed with MAT's statement. Therefore, i dont see how one can get banished to the madhouse for merely agreeing with MAT's assessment of your recent writings.
John:
ReplyDeleteThank-you for reconsidering your words. I wish everybody was as quick to correct himself for such faux pas as you are. Fantomas, and, of course, Val & Henry, would learn a lot from you.
louJIF, the only one who referred to speaking in riddles was you.
ReplyDeleteAnd with all due respect to MAT, I did say what I meant to say, and spent the next few posts saying that I said what I meant to say, and saying more of what I said I meant to say. I said what I said. Don't make me say it again.
I took no offense at your crass comment, as I have come to expect it from you. No matter, I will accept your apology, both for myself and as a favor to our kind host, so that your lesson in humility can be complete.
Noone:
ReplyDeleteNo, this is not Miami's Cuban Connection. I actually care about my blog. Oscar never cared about his. That is why it was so easy for its enemies to destroy it.
As for The Madhouse, it is just another thread on the RCAB. It is there that offensive comments are afforded a decorous retirement and can be visited by their authors or anybody else who might care to.
MAT,
ReplyDeleteThanks, as i told you earlier, my school of thought is progressive.
Which requires to me to continually review the world around me, including my thoughts, words, and deeds. And if necessary to delete, add, or amend them accordingly.
As for the Vals, Henrys, and Fantomas. Well, it must be miserable to be around people like them. People who are intellectually and mentally unable to range from one side to another. And at least in Val and Henry's case, it show in their unwillingness to allow others to disagree with their narrow interpretation of any subject that may be on the table.
nonee,
ReplyDeletelol, ok
Well MAT, your rebuttal?
ReplyDeleteManuel, I have never heard of any Cuban rafters during the Batista era? Where would Cuba have been today if Batista had remained in power?
ReplyDeleteGuys...the issue at hand is that not only dictators, but people who claim they love freedom but behave like dictators or chivatos, can and do cause a lot of harm. Val and rin tin tin (Henry) appear to belong to the latter group.
ReplyDeleteMamey
anon said:
ReplyDeleteGuys...the issue at hand is that not only dictators, but people who claim they love freedom but behave like dictators or chivatos, can and do cause a lot of harm. Val and rin tin tin (Henry) appear to belong to the latter group.
Oh dont you worry. Chivatos like Val and Henry will never be forgotten or forgiven.
I think they call it "Loving Too Much".
ReplyDeleteJohn:
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason to rebut anything. The names of the "victims" cited by Anonymous say it all. The so-called Cuban Revolution was actually a series of terrorist bombings carried out against the Cuban population by urban guerrillas who targetted theatres, nightclubs, buses and other public places and utilities. Batista's police was perfectly justified in hunting down these terrorists and it was often Fidel Castro's minions who gave them up to the authorities for Castro's rebels in the hills regarded their "brothers-in-arms" in the cities as rivals for power.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right. There were no Cuban rafters before Fidel came to power. In fact, more Americans lived in Cuba before 1959 than Cubans in the United States. Like Canadians until just recently, Cubans could even enter the U.S. without a visa. But they had no reason to immigrate because Cuba was an Edenic country then that nobody wanted to leave.
Nonee said: I think they call it "Loving Too Much".
ReplyDeleteAnd that is what i am talking about, "riddles." What the hell does this mean "I think they call it "Loving Too Much?"
All people are asking is just for you to start speaking like a common person.
Respectfully,
people who claim they love freedom but behave like dictators or chivatos, can and do cause a lot of harm.
ReplyDeleteLike the abusive father that cried when he beat you. You know, "It hurts me more than it hurts you..."
I thought you never listened to me anyway. I kinda liked it.
I never said i didnt "listen" to you. I said i dont "speak" to you.
ReplyDeleteBig difference!!
And yet, here we are.
ReplyDeleteSame difference.
Mat until what number of comment you want this thread to go to 100, 124, 0r 150
ReplyDeletetell me , tell me
to help you reach that goal
lol
Manuel: The names of the "victims" cited by Anonymous say it all.
ReplyDeleteAre you calling Pelayo Cuervo a terrorist?
Do you consider Jose Antonio Echeverria a terrorist?
Were you a botellero under the Batista regime?
For those who do not know what "botellero" mean, it was those who received a salary from the government without doing any kind of work.
It is very hard to defend a dictator like Batista, like Manuel is doing. Manuel claims to be for freedom and democracy and to abhor censorship, but he defends a lieutenant who without any reason, interrupted Cuba's democratic process and in several occasions during his dictatorship, imposed censorship to the media and suspended the Constitution.
At the end, he refused to allow clean elections, where Cuban patriot Carlos Marquez Sterling could have been elected president and it would have eliminated the possibility of Castro gaining complete control, like he did when Batista fled a few months later.
Batista is responsible for Castro gaining power, and as such it is responsible for the destruction of the Cuban nation.
Those who claim to be against Castro but defend Batista are defending the destruction of Cuba by these two criminals.
Once looking out through my window let's say 1957 or 58 in Havana, I saw Batistas police drag a man to the streets and beat him to a pulp, that was the first time I saw that kind of violence, needless to say I was in shock, I was only 7 or 8 years old, later we found out he was a rebel and was placing bombs that killed innocent people hence the beating I want to clarify that Batista's police didn't kill the guy, we saw him later in olive green garb.
ReplyDeleteMat, congrats on the impressive # of interesting comments...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteBatista had nothing to do with the assassination of Pelayo Cuervo, and, yes, José Antonio Echevarría was a terrorist by any definition. He and his cohorts attacked the Presidential Palace but were prevented from reaching their objective, the family quarters, where Batista and his five young children lived. Otherwise they would have committed a crime without precedent since Yekaterinburg.
When the U.S. drove Batista from power in 1958, Cuba had the third-highest GNP in the Western Hemisphere; Cubans enjoyed a standard of living that was comparable to that of the most advanced European nations; the Cuban peso traded higher than the American dollar; there was a balanced budget and no public debt.
Batista did not destroy Cuba. Fidel and his barbudos destroyed Cuba in every way imaginable.
I suppose that you were one of the rabble crying "¡Paredon!" or maybe your parents were.
That, too, also was a fidelista invention. There were no firing squads in Batista's Cuba.
Anon:
ReplyDeleteI "thought" MAT was only saying that the focus "Lost City" was more on Batista, than Fidel.
Nevertheless, i should not interject, as my knowledge about Cuban history is very limited to say the least.
Fantomas, remember you need to be in ur best behavior.
ReplyDelete~Mommy
val prieto=chivato
ReplyDeleteManuel:
ReplyDelete"Batista had nothing to do with the assassination of Pelayo Cuervo"
The only way that you can say something like that is if you were part of Batista's murderous police. Were you?
Pelayo Cuervo, for those who do not know who he was, was a very respected opposition leader who was murdered and his corpse was dumped in an area known as El Laguito.
Everyone knows that the only one who could have wanted Pelayo Cuervo murdered, were Batista and his henchmen.
Was Tellechea one of those henchmen? He didn't answer my question if he was a "botellero" under Batista's dictatorship and he probably will not answer this question either.
Tellechea: "Jose Antonio Echevarria was a terrorist by any definition"
Tellechea doesn't even know how to spell the name of this Cuban patriot. It is Echeverria, moron, not Echevarria.
Jose Antonio Echeverria, was as much a terrorist as George Washington or Martin Luther King.
He was a Catholic and a charismatic student leader who would have prevented Castro's takeover of the island, if they had succeeded in getting rid of Tellechea's idol.
Castro opposed the students attack against the presidential palace, because it would have left him in the mountains without anyone to fight against.
It is not surprising that Tellechea is siding with Castro. They both have a lot to thank Batista for.
Another lie is for him to say that Jose Antonio wanted to kill Batista and his children. First of all, Jose Antonio attacked a radio station, Radio Reloj, to read a proclamation saying that the Batista had been killed. Jose Antonio was killed leaving the radio station and before he could get back to the University of Havana.
Jose Antonio Echeverria, was not a terrorist, like Tellechea claims, but a patriot who had the courage to fight for what he believed.
Tellechea considers him a terrorist because he opposed Batista's corrupt regime.
What Tellechea won't answer is:
Why do you claim to be a democrat and defend Batista who interrupted the democratic process in Cuba?
Did you or your family benefited from Batista's corrupt regime?
Que arroz con mango! We are still fighting over incidents in the 1940's and 1950's. The Cubans will never be able to unite. That's always been the problem.
ReplyDeleteIn case that you were not aware: Manuel's grandfather was a member of Batista's cabinet.
ReplyDeleteThat is why he has to defend the dictator.
He should have been honest enough to say that here.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYes, of course, Washington and Martin Luther King, Jr. also conspired to assassinate their enemies and their underage children in cold blood.
Castro condemned the attack on the Presidential Palace to show that he was better than a common assassin. Of course he was not. The rosary that he wore from his reck was also part of that ruse. Many fell for it; no doubt you and your entire family did.
You didn't answer my question: Were you or your parents part of the rabble that were shouting "¡Paredón!"?
Or were you planting bombs with the other terrorists?
What great harm you and your kind have done to our country!
And still, after 50 years, you regret nothing.
MAT,
ReplyDeleteBut there is a serious question laid on the table. Did you or your family have any ties with the Batista government?
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteMy grandfather was twice Minister of Labor and once Minister of Communication in Batista's cabinet. I have said it here before and on Babalú. He was also the only member of Batista's cabinet to advocate bombing the Sierra Maestra back to the Stone Ages and he oversaw the construction of the Tren Blindado for the last offensive against the castristas in Santa Clara. The armored train was betrayed to the Communists by Colonel Rosell, who was paid with monies obtained by Castro from CIA operatives in Cuba posing as American businessmen.
So, yes, it was the United States that gave the coup de grace to the Cuban Republic and installed the "Jeffersonian Democrat" in power.
Manuel, no, I was a very young child attending school in Havana and I did not plant bombs nor did I ask for paredon.
ReplyDeleteMy father was a member of the Ortodoxo party, he was against Batista but he never sympathized with Castro.
Now, would you have the courage and the honesty to answer my questions that you have refused to answer:
Wasn't your grandfather a member of Batista's cabinet?
Didn't your family benefited from the corruption during the Batista regime?
Wasn't Batista the first president to legalize the Communist party?
Didn't Blas Roca, the father of Cuba's communism, say that Batista was a "Reserve of Cuba's democracy"? You should know, since you translated Luque Escalona's book.
Wasn't Carlos Rafael Rodriguez, another of Cuba's top communists who was later instrumental in Castro's communization of the island, on Batista's payroll?
Manuel:
ReplyDelete"My grandfather was twice Minister of Labor and once Minister of Communication in Batista's cabinet. I have said it here before and on Babalú. He was also the only member of Batista's cabinet to advocate bombing the Sierra Maestra back to the Stone Ages"
So your grandfather was a real TERRORIST. There were thousands of campesinos living in the Sierra Maestra. They were living there with their families, including children. They had nothing to do with Castro and were not responsible for Castro choosing the Sierra Maestra to hide.
If Batista had followed your grandfather's recommendation to bomb the Sierra Maestra back to the stone age, as you say, thousands of innocent poor campesinos would have died.
I am glad that the other members of Batista's cabinet were not willing to go along with your terrorist grandfather.
Thanks for letting us know that the real terrorists were in your own family.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteMy grandfather's first cousin was Prime Minister under Grau. My other grandfather was President of the Havana Cattleman's Association and a supporter of Chibás. All of Cuban history is represented in my family.
And all alike were honorable men who served the nation with disinterest and patriotism.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteWars kill people. It is the nature of war. Batista's only fault was that he refused to fight a war as a war. Again, because he was that rare military man who dreaded bloodshed.
It was Castro who waged a war of terror against the campesimos in the Sierra Maestra and was in effect holding all of them hostage. They were, in fact, the first Cubans to die before his firing squads.
Many would have died, too, if the Sierra Maestra had been bombed, no doubt, but many more would have been liberated and the entire nation saved.
Manuel,
ReplyDeleteYou are right on target. The truth needs to be told. Enough Bullshit.
Go Manny GO!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe truth is all we need.
ReplyDeleteManuel, war kills people, but what your grandfather was telling Batista to do was not war, it was genocide.
ReplyDeleteHe was willing to kill thousands of innocent people living in Sierra Maestra, in order to get rid of Castro and his small guerrilla group.
That is genocide, which is as bad or worse than terrorism.
You can call your grandfather an honorable man, but honorable men do not promote genocide.
It is incredible that you would call "honorable" a man promoting genocide, while at the same time calling Jose Antonio Echeverria a terrorist.
Your ugly face has been unmasked for everyone to see.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteHistorians blame Roosevelt and Churchill for not bombing the concentration camps. Yes, thousands of inmates headed for the ovens would have been killed by the air raids, but millions more would have been saved because the camps would have been decommissioned for the remainder of the war.
In respect to Cuba, you would change nothing because you are personally satisfied with the outcome. You actually prefer Fidel to Batista. Don't be afraid to say it: you are an unreconstructed fidelista. There are very few true believers left in Cuba but Miami is full of
"fidelistas sin Fidel" who still regard the barbudos as "heroes."
Well, these "heroes" destroyed our country and once it is free again there will new heroes -- those who resisted Fidel and his henchmen.
Hey I'd be willing to kill lots of innocent people in the Sierra Maestra, if of course it would have kept that beast from taking over Cuba, I'm sure less would have been killed, Castro did a big number on us, and no I'm no Batistiana.
ReplyDeleteManuel, it is stupid to compare the war against Hitler with a "war" to try to keep a dictator like Batista in power.
ReplyDeleteThe campesinos living in the Sierra Maestra, including thousands of children, were not going to the gas ovens. They were living a peaceful life and you and your grandfather wanted to murder them in order to keep a corrupt dictator in power.
The genocide that your grandfather was promoting wasn't going to end the rebellion against your idol Batista, IT WOULD ONLY HAVE MADE IT MUCH WORSE!
The people of Cuba, except those like your family who were sucking Batista's teat, didn't like the dictator.
They wanted to get rid of him to return to the democratic process that he interrupted by overthrowing a democratically elected government.
Unfortunately, honest leaders like Jose Antonio Echeverria, who you call a terrorist and who could have been an alternative to Castro, died trying to get rid of Batista.
Castro and his thugs didn't die because they were actually hiding in the Sierra Maestra. The real fighting was being done in the underground. Batista was such a coward and a corrupt leader that he fled with his millions and delivered the entire country to Castro in a silver platter.
The stupidity of the "batistianos" like you, is to believe that Cuba can only have two dictators, Castro or Batista, as leaders.
There were leaders like Carlos Marquez Sterling who could have become president of Cuba if your idol Batista had not been such a crook and rig the elections of 1958. If Marquez Sterling would have become president, Castro would have had to come down from the mountains and would have had no choice but to participate in the democratic process. Batista rigged the elections and then fled a few months later delivering Cuba to Castro. Maybe it was his plan all along, since he was always supporting the old guard communists in Cuba.
It is hypocritical that you would try to fool your readers by calling yourself a "democrat" when in reality you are in favor of dictators, as long as you can participate in the corruption brought by them.
And what is worse, you are in favor of the dictator who can be considered the "political father of Castro," and as such, you cannot deny your great responsibility in the destruction of the Cuban nation.
99
ReplyDelete100th :)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteYour thesis is that Fidel Castro was irrelevant to the revolutionary process and that finding him and killing him wasn't important.
Haven't the last 49 years convinced you otherwise?
Fidel is the author of the Cuban Holocaust. Stopping him would have prevented it just as killing Hitler before he came to power would have saved Europe's Jews.
Would you also have opposed the killing of Hitler at any price?
You claim to care about the lives of innocent people. How about the 104,000 murdered by Castro since 1959?
No, they are not on your radar.
It is only the tyrant's life that matters to you.
BTW, you shouldn't comment this early in the morning on a Saturday. It makes it very easy to tell who you are.
John:
ReplyDeleteThank-you. Always helpful, as usual.
Manuel, you have been unmasked. I have proved that you are nothing but a hypocrite who loves dictators, as long as those dictators provide you and your family immunity form their oppression and the possibility to benefit from their corruption. I am sure that if your family had not been involved with Batista and Castro had given them the opportunity to be part of hid brutal regime, you would have been there right now conducting mitines de repudio and defending this dictator like you defend the previous one.
ReplyDeleteA true democrat is against all dictatorships. You, sir, are not a democrat.
MAT: "BTW, you shouldn't comment this early in the morning on a Saturday. It makes it very easy to tell who you are."
ReplyDeleteI noticed that when you replied to my first few comments you were calling me "Val."
But then you stopped doing so, because you finally realized that you were wrong and that calling me "Val" was just part of your personal obsession. LOL
Jeez, this is like watching the Batista good- Batista bad arguments between my dad and my uncles. Do pueblos get the governments that they deserve?
ReplyDeleteAnon1970 said:
ReplyDeleteOnce upon a time there was also an argument between your grandfather and great-uncles as to whether Machado was good or bad.
The verdict is in: Machado was good.
And this was admitted even 50 years ago by old men who as youths had once fought and toppled him.
But more than that: the consensus among this our oldest generation is that Machado was also Cuba's greatest president.
The same vindication will come for Batista, too. In fact, that change has already begun.
No greater argument can be made for Batista's Cuba than Fidel's Cuba.
P.S: I can only speak as to Cuba:
ReplyDeleteCuba does not have the government it deserves but the government that the U.S. thought Cuba deserved.