Tarcisio Cardenal Bertone has donated a lifesize statue of Pope John Paul II to the Cuban people who would have preferred two words of succor to 2000 lbs. of bronze. I don't know if the former Eastern bloc countries have erected statues to the late pontiff. They certainly have greater cause to honor him than we do, although we too may honor him as their liberator. He, of course, did nothing for us when he was finally allowed to visit Cuba nearly a decade after the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe.
The John Paul that visited Cuba in 1998 was a different pope from the one who 10 years earlier had confronted and defeated Communism. He came to Cuba to preach reconciliation not resistance and forgiveness where there had never been justice. Like Bertone, he decried the trade embargo against Cuba which the Vatican had supported against South Africa. While he held the other Communist satraps at arm's length and rebuked Marcos like an unruly school child, he was nothing if not deferential with Fidel, never criticizing him in his homilies nor the inhuman system he had fostered on the Cuban people, so inhuman himself in fact and detached from the reality that surrounded him and cried out to him for recognition, that one would have thought he had left Rome for Cuba to do as the Cubans do, or at least as Castro and his henchmen do — scoff at the suffering of the Cuban people. His words of praise for "Che" Guevara's good intentions and for the Revolution's social regression, but, above all, the posed photographs of John Paul and Castro hand in hand, literally and figuratively, may some day condemn his donated statue to the same fate as "Che" Guevara's, which is only few meters from it in Santa Clara.
In fact, it could be argued that Pope John Paul II's statue is part of a monumental complex dedicated to "Che" Guevara. The statue was a gift from Cardinal Bertone but its placement and configuration was determined by the regime. The statue has a stone canopy above it which, according to Granma, represents "La Loma del Capiro, an historical site in Santa Clara associated with the liberation of this city by troops under Comandante Che Guevara in late December 1958."
The union of Catholic and Communist iconography in this sculptural ensemble is strangely appropriate. John Paul II was a great admirer of Guevara. Guevara, of course, would have had only the greatest contempt for John Paul and if his hands had ever touched his it would not have been fraternally, but Guevara missed the John Paul phenomenon and his feelings are not on record. There is also the symbolism which the statue denotes, for Cuba's collaborationist Church (or, at least, its hierarchs) are indeed under the protection of the State as the State itself enjoys the support and benediction of both the Cuban and the Universal Church.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Notable & Cheap: "Promise Us $2 Billion, Raúl, and We'll Call It a Deal"
"For the record I don't think Cuba will ever pay for the [$2 billion in] expropriations much less interest, but the Cuban government should acknowledge the debt and attempt to settle it like any debtor would. That's what China and Vietnam did under similar circumstances BEFORE the U.S. began wide-open trade with those countries. — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Norm!" Babalú, February 29, 2006
If offered the opportunitry there is no doubt that Raúl Castro would jump at the chance of getting the trade embargo lifted for a promise to pay $2 billion in restitution for confiscated American assets. Hell, even if he had to make good on his promise, he would beg, borrow or steal the money, or, like Ceausescu, squeeze the very blood from his people to get it. As a last resort, he might even write a check for $2 billion from his personal Credit Suisse account because those $2 billion would return immediately untold dividends to him and the other "captains" of Cuban industry.
Yet that is all that Henry would require of him — Bill Gates' pocket change — for sanctions to be eliminated and "wide-open trade" to begin with "the Cuban government." By "wide open trade" we suppose that Henry means that Communist Cuba would not have to pay cash on the barrel for American goods anymore but would be extended credits and subsidies, for that is the only difference that exists at present between ongoing trade with Cuba and the "wide-open trade" which Henry "Economist" Gómez proposes for a mere promise of $2 billion.
Of course, we all know that Henry's idea of "freedom" for the Cuban people does not emanate from Martí's "Con todos y para el bien de todos," but from the "economic pragmatism" of the butchers of Tiananmen Square.
If offered the opportunitry there is no doubt that Raúl Castro would jump at the chance of getting the trade embargo lifted for a promise to pay $2 billion in restitution for confiscated American assets. Hell, even if he had to make good on his promise, he would beg, borrow or steal the money, or, like Ceausescu, squeeze the very blood from his people to get it. As a last resort, he might even write a check for $2 billion from his personal Credit Suisse account because those $2 billion would return immediately untold dividends to him and the other "captains" of Cuban industry.
Yet that is all that Henry would require of him — Bill Gates' pocket change — for sanctions to be eliminated and "wide-open trade" to begin with "the Cuban government." By "wide open trade" we suppose that Henry means that Communist Cuba would not have to pay cash on the barrel for American goods anymore but would be extended credits and subsidies, for that is the only difference that exists at present between ongoing trade with Cuba and the "wide-open trade" which Henry "Economist" Gómez proposes for a mere promise of $2 billion.
Of course, we all know that Henry's idea of "freedom" for the Cuban people does not emanate from Martí's "Con todos y para el bien de todos," but from the "economic pragmatism" of the butchers of Tiananmen Square.
The Robber Barons Were Never This Greedy
How to explain Castro's exploitation of the Cuban people to neophytes in 15 words or less:
The Castro regime pays Cubans in script but doesn't accept it at the company store.
You are cordially invited to explain any aspect of Castro's tyranny with a similar economy of words.
The Castro regime pays Cubans in script but doesn't accept it at the company store.
You are cordially invited to explain any aspect of Castro's tyranny with a similar economy of words.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
What the Moneo Affaire Can Teach Babalú
I am almost inclined to leave the last post up indefinitely since it has attracted 800 page views in less than 24 hours. There is obviously an ocean of ill-will towards George Moneo at Babalú, and since Val Prieto does not allow it to be vented there, it overflows into other channels. The Babalunians are still afraid to use their real names or monikers for fear of retaliation but their anger is real if masked.
It was in response to that widespread disaffection that Babalú has been forced against all its instincts except that of self-preservation to modify its most radical positions and allow a modicum of dissonance in its proverbial echo-chamber. No longer do we read at Babalú that Cubans on the island are cowards who need to be rendered in a pressure cooker or immersed in a bloodbath. No more are enemies of Cuban freedom like Barack Obama celebrated at Babalú while true friends like John McCain are raked over the coals. The obsessions of a few no longer frustrate the exertions of the many on behalf of Cuba. Those who lost their way have been set on the right path again, and those who would not follow that path have been told that they are free to follow any other elsewhere but not to mislead others under Babalú's banner.
If Val & Henry would also renounce their arbitrariness and deal fairly with all their readers rather than insult, alienate and finally silence them, if by their conduct they would attest to the sincerity of their attachment to pluralism and free speech, I should consider the year that I have spent admonishing them not to have been wasted and dedicate my own time to something more constructive than pointing out and restraining their puerilities.
It was in response to that widespread disaffection that Babalú has been forced against all its instincts except that of self-preservation to modify its most radical positions and allow a modicum of dissonance in its proverbial echo-chamber. No longer do we read at Babalú that Cubans on the island are cowards who need to be rendered in a pressure cooker or immersed in a bloodbath. No more are enemies of Cuban freedom like Barack Obama celebrated at Babalú while true friends like John McCain are raked over the coals. The obsessions of a few no longer frustrate the exertions of the many on behalf of Cuba. Those who lost their way have been set on the right path again, and those who would not follow that path have been told that they are free to follow any other elsewhere but not to mislead others under Babalú's banner.
If Val & Henry would also renounce their arbitrariness and deal fairly with all their readers rather than insult, alienate and finally silence them, if by their conduct they would attest to the sincerity of their attachment to pluralism and free speech, I should consider the year that I have spent admonishing them not to have been wasted and dedicate my own time to something more constructive than pointing out and restraining their puerilities.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Notable & Cretinous: George Moneo Grovels
"The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated." — George Moneo, "The Rumors of My Demise...," Babalú, February 27, 2008
George licked the boot as bootlickers will do and was granted absolution by Val. A man who would degrade himself to Val Prieto is beneath contempt, and you can't get much more beneath contempt (or anything else) than George Moneo.
We note that George announced his reintegration (after 3 days of reeducation) to the ranks of Babalú's contributors in a closed thread, which means that Babalú's readers are unable to ask such pertinent questions as why his last post was deleted and his name removed from the roster of Babalú's contributing editors, an omission which Val tried to conceal on several ocassions by suppressing the roster altogether.
We note with some satisfaction that such is the influence and outreach of the Review of Cuban-American Blogs that George was obliged to dispel "rumors" of his ouster which were only reported here, and which, incidentally, he does not deny. The fact that he has returned to Babalú and is no longer therefore a dead letter there does not address the question of his ouster and is no denial of it.
This incident — the airbrushing of George and his subsequent reappearance as one of the "superb cadre" of Babalú contributors — proves yet again Babalú's infinite contempt for its readers as well as its adoption of Castroite modalities derived ultimately from the Bolsheviks to rewrite its scandalous history.
POSTSCRIPT:
George L. Moneo said...
LOL! Manny, you are as predictable as the sun rising in the east! Thanks for helping me win a bet...
2/27/2008 11:46 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
George:
The more you deny, the more you affirm.
2/27/2008 11:50 PM
George L. Moneo said...
Manny, as a journalist you're an excellent fiction writer. I made a bet that I could get you to write at least 3 paragraphs if I wrote one line on Babalu. I won, hands down, with one paragraph to spare. I'll be thinking of you when I enjoy my lunch.
Thanks for showing the world that all I had to do was to gently pull the chain and the monkey jumped...
2/28/2008 12:08 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
George:
Of all the Babalunian writers, I have always paid the least attention to you for a reason which you yourself admitted recently: you rarely write about Cuba at Babalú.
I know that my lack of attention wounds you. I hardly think, however flattering it sounds, that you would engineer your own eviction from Babalú in order to get me to write three paragraphs about you.
In any case, here are 3 more paragraphs. Maybe they will buy you dinner.
2/28/2008 12:21 AM
George licked the boot as bootlickers will do and was granted absolution by Val. A man who would degrade himself to Val Prieto is beneath contempt, and you can't get much more beneath contempt (or anything else) than George Moneo.
We note that George announced his reintegration (after 3 days of reeducation) to the ranks of Babalú's contributors in a closed thread, which means that Babalú's readers are unable to ask such pertinent questions as why his last post was deleted and his name removed from the roster of Babalú's contributing editors, an omission which Val tried to conceal on several ocassions by suppressing the roster altogether.
We note with some satisfaction that such is the influence and outreach of the Review of Cuban-American Blogs that George was obliged to dispel "rumors" of his ouster which were only reported here, and which, incidentally, he does not deny. The fact that he has returned to Babalú and is no longer therefore a dead letter there does not address the question of his ouster and is no denial of it.
This incident — the airbrushing of George and his subsequent reappearance as one of the "superb cadre" of Babalú contributors — proves yet again Babalú's infinite contempt for its readers as well as its adoption of Castroite modalities derived ultimately from the Bolsheviks to rewrite its scandalous history.
POSTSCRIPT:
George L. Moneo said...
LOL! Manny, you are as predictable as the sun rising in the east! Thanks for helping me win a bet...
2/27/2008 11:46 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
George:
The more you deny, the more you affirm.
2/27/2008 11:50 PM
George L. Moneo said...
Manny, as a journalist you're an excellent fiction writer. I made a bet that I could get you to write at least 3 paragraphs if I wrote one line on Babalu. I won, hands down, with one paragraph to spare. I'll be thinking of you when I enjoy my lunch.
Thanks for showing the world that all I had to do was to gently pull the chain and the monkey jumped...
2/28/2008 12:08 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
George:
Of all the Babalunian writers, I have always paid the least attention to you for a reason which you yourself admitted recently: you rarely write about Cuba at Babalú.
I know that my lack of attention wounds you. I hardly think, however flattering it sounds, that you would engineer your own eviction from Babalú in order to get me to write three paragraphs about you.
In any case, here are 3 more paragraphs. Maybe they will buy you dinner.
2/28/2008 12:21 AM
William F. Buckley and I
William F. Buckley died today. Much admired by me once, I came to admire him less when he became a proponent of raprochement with Castro's Cuba and an opponent of the embargo.
He mentions me in one of his books:
William F. Buckley and Me
He mentions me in one of his books:
William F. Buckley and Me
Notable & Declamatory: Henry Tells Us What "It's About"
"Simply put, it's about Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. It's about Antunez. It's about Armando Valladares. It's about my grandparents. It's about 11 million Cuban living in serfdom." — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "It's Not About Fidel," Babalú, February 27, 2008
Thank goodness it's not about bashing John McCain anymore.
Thank goodness it's not about bashing John McCain anymore.
The Old Babalú is Back (Not that We Are Celebrating)
With the discharge of George Moneo and chastening of Henry Gómez, a new day has dawned at Babalú, or, rather, the black night that had settled for months over it has finally lifted, revealing the old but familiar dawn. Precipitated by George's unilateral declaration that Babalú was not only a blog about Cuba but a "conservative blog," albeit one which with its frequent condemnations of John McCain and praise of Barack Obama on issues not related to Cuba, had, in effect, become an insipid and derivative liberal blog, Val Prieto had no choice but to "ponerse el jacket" and make Babalú conform again to its mission statement and the expectations of its readers.
Today we find Alberto de la Cruz likening Obama to Fidel because of the "inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and some pretty horrendous lies contained in his speeches." And Henry has re-discovered Cuba and his talent for deconstructing the writings of her maligners. I dare say we can expect no more anti-McCain canards from the "political animal since the age of 5."
Val took our advice and set his house in order. It is Val's blog that George and Henry were running into the ground. George would not change his course and even admitted his own irrelevancy when he declared in his last (deleted) post that he could not or would not write about Cuba, so Val dismissed him. Henry, apparently, has agreed to desist in his one-man campaign to install Barack Obama in the Oval Office, so he gets to stay, although, as we said, chastened by George's example. And Val has reasserted his control over Babalú after essentially being asleep at the helm for months like Rip Van Winkle while George and Henry set his house on fire and "the island on the net without a bearded dictator" in fact had two. Now the old "beerded" dictator is back, and though nothing is perfect at Babalú, everything is at least recognizable again.
It is good to hang an admiral now and then (even one who floats in a teacup) pour encourager les autres.
Today we find Alberto de la Cruz likening Obama to Fidel because of the "inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and some pretty horrendous lies contained in his speeches." And Henry has re-discovered Cuba and his talent for deconstructing the writings of her maligners. I dare say we can expect no more anti-McCain canards from the "political animal since the age of 5."
Val took our advice and set his house in order. It is Val's blog that George and Henry were running into the ground. George would not change his course and even admitted his own irrelevancy when he declared in his last (deleted) post that he could not or would not write about Cuba, so Val dismissed him. Henry, apparently, has agreed to desist in his one-man campaign to install Barack Obama in the Oval Office, so he gets to stay, although, as we said, chastened by George's example. And Val has reasserted his control over Babalú after essentially being asleep at the helm for months like Rip Van Winkle while George and Henry set his house on fire and "the island on the net without a bearded dictator" in fact had two. Now the old "beerded" dictator is back, and though nothing is perfect at Babalú, everything is at least recognizable again.
It is good to hang an admiral now and then (even one who floats in a teacup) pour encourager les autres.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Notable & Long In Coming: Civil War Erupts At Babalú
"Well now, this is progress. We've [i.e. Babalú] evolved from a blog that was Pro-Cuba, to a blog that was Anti-McCain and Pro-Chebama, and now to a blog that is stridently anti-Catholic, including historically erroneous references to the Black Legend and citations [from] Revelations [about the 'Whore of Babylon']. Nutty . . . nutty. . . nutty. May the (non-denominational) God help us all." — Little Gator, "He Came, He Saw and He Praised the Murderous Dictatorship" [comment], Babalú, February 26, 2006
Apparently, Babalú continues in disarray over the sudden and unexplained ouster of George Moneo. Both Val and Henry are too busy trying to stop their satellites from availing themselves of the schism at Babalú to sever ties with it, to devote much time or energy to censoring commenters. If George's self-described "itchy finger" were still at work, Little Gator's comment would been instantaneously deleted. It may still be along with the controversial thread; but, for now, at least, it constitutes a public rebuke of Babalú on its own pages that has been hinted at before but never so forcibly expressed before.
Is Babalú an all-purpose blog, as George Moneo intimated yesterday in his last post, or does it have a distinctively Cuban character which has become obscured and even negated by its recent attacks on the anti-Castro McCain and advocacy for the pro-Castro Obama?
A war is being fought for the soul of Babalú.
RCAB is proud to have hired the first volley in that war nearly one-year ago and hundreds since.
Apparently, Babalú continues in disarray over the sudden and unexplained ouster of George Moneo. Both Val and Henry are too busy trying to stop their satellites from availing themselves of the schism at Babalú to sever ties with it, to devote much time or energy to censoring commenters. If George's self-described "itchy finger" were still at work, Little Gator's comment would been instantaneously deleted. It may still be along with the controversial thread; but, for now, at least, it constitutes a public rebuke of Babalú on its own pages that has been hinted at before but never so forcibly expressed before.
Is Babalú an all-purpose blog, as George Moneo intimated yesterday in his last post, or does it have a distinctively Cuban character which has become obscured and even negated by its recent attacks on the anti-Castro McCain and advocacy for the pro-Castro Obama?
A war is being fought for the soul of Babalú.
RCAB is proud to have hired the first volley in that war nearly one-year ago and hundreds since.
Notable & Still Apropos: The Catholic Church vs. Christianity
"Christianity died at the hands of Catholicism." — José Martí
Martí meant, of course, that prelates like Cardinal Bertone and "Vicars of Christ" like Benedict XVI, more bureaucrats than soldiers of Christ, with Machiavelli's Prince for a Bible and Ovid's Satyricon as a moral guide, had turned their backs on the teachings of Christ and embraced Mammon as God, endangering by their example the very creed that they professed but did not practice. And Marti was right. The leadership of the Catholic Church are warped and stunted men, detached from humanity and contemptuous of it, clinging like courtesans to any tyrant in exchange for an atom of influence, exerted always on behalf of their own parochial interests and never in defense of the tyrant's victims.
Nowhere in the world has the Catholic Church been a greater force for evil than in Cuba. In the 19th century, Pope Pius IX declared Spain's war against the Cuban rebels to be a "holy crusade" and blessed his Catholic Majesty's soldiers as standard bearers of civilization. During U.S. occupation, the Church readily switched allegiance from Spain to the United States, and more interested in preserving her properties in Cuba — she was the island's biggest landowner and landlord — than whether the island became a colony of a Protestant nation, beseeched the Americans never to recognize Cuban independence but to remain there forever as guarantor of her traditional fueros. In the Republican era, the Church allied herself with every dictator of right or left, and at Belén produced the greatest dictator of all, Fidel Castro, and extended her protection to him as he waged a terrorist war on the Cuban people in order to enslave it; and for 50 years, even when the Church herself became an object of persecution in Cuba, she did nothing to oppose Castro but preached resignation and submission to him, becoming Castro's accomplice as she has always been his handmaiden.
But let me not imply that Cuba is the exception. It is generally agreed that the Catholic Church was the most militant in Poland during the time of Communist domination. And yet only last year it was revealed that the hierarchy of the Polish Church, from top to bottom, had been compromised by Communist agents, including the Archbishop of Krakow, John Paul's chosen successor, who resigned after it was revealed that he also had been an informant for the Communists.
Can we expect more of our prelates in Cuba? No, I don't think we can.
Martí meant, of course, that prelates like Cardinal Bertone and "Vicars of Christ" like Benedict XVI, more bureaucrats than soldiers of Christ, with Machiavelli's Prince for a Bible and Ovid's Satyricon as a moral guide, had turned their backs on the teachings of Christ and embraced Mammon as God, endangering by their example the very creed that they professed but did not practice. And Marti was right. The leadership of the Catholic Church are warped and stunted men, detached from humanity and contemptuous of it, clinging like courtesans to any tyrant in exchange for an atom of influence, exerted always on behalf of their own parochial interests and never in defense of the tyrant's victims.
Nowhere in the world has the Catholic Church been a greater force for evil than in Cuba. In the 19th century, Pope Pius IX declared Spain's war against the Cuban rebels to be a "holy crusade" and blessed his Catholic Majesty's soldiers as standard bearers of civilization. During U.S. occupation, the Church readily switched allegiance from Spain to the United States, and more interested in preserving her properties in Cuba — she was the island's biggest landowner and landlord — than whether the island became a colony of a Protestant nation, beseeched the Americans never to recognize Cuban independence but to remain there forever as guarantor of her traditional fueros. In the Republican era, the Church allied herself with every dictator of right or left, and at Belén produced the greatest dictator of all, Fidel Castro, and extended her protection to him as he waged a terrorist war on the Cuban people in order to enslave it; and for 50 years, even when the Church herself became an object of persecution in Cuba, she did nothing to oppose Castro but preached resignation and submission to him, becoming Castro's accomplice as she has always been his handmaiden.
But let me not imply that Cuba is the exception. It is generally agreed that the Catholic Church was the most militant in Poland during the time of Communist domination. And yet only last year it was revealed that the hierarchy of the Polish Church, from top to bottom, had been compromised by Communist agents, including the Archbishop of Krakow, John Paul's chosen successor, who resigned after it was revealed that he also had been an informant for the Communists.
Can we expect more of our prelates in Cuba? No, I don't think we can.
Notable & Laudable: Condemning Tyranny in Cuba
"Fidel Castro has murdered many and imprisoned more to hang on to power. He has despoiled nature and desecrated the architectural heritage of what could have been an island paradise. His much-vaunted health service is decried by his enslaved people, many of whom prostitute themselves because of the degraded economy. The reality is it is time for Cuba to move on - to democracy and rule of law and prosperity which its depressed people so richly deserve after two generations of rule by the Castro brothers." —Edward McMillan-Scott, Vice-President of the European Parliament, February 25, 2006
Conservative parlimentarian and human rights activist Edward McMillan-Scott, MEP was expelled by the Castro regime in November 2006 because he had unauthorized contacts with Cuban dissidents while on an official visit to Cuba on behalf of the EU Democracy Task Force. His remarks were in response to Labour's Deputy Leader Harriet Harman's assertion that Fidel Castro was "a hero of the Left."
Confronted as we are every day by misrepresentations of the Castro regime which are the grist of 99% of the media's reportage on Communist Cuba, it is well to remember that not everybody is fooled. There are friends of Cuban freedom in the world. Although we tend to focus on the enemies because their words are the ones which media report and dwell upon, we should not ignore nor fail to praise the lonely voices that rise in condemnation of the despoilers of our country.
Sometimes it seems as if we are trapped in a Swiftian satire, where nothing is as it seems, and everybody walks on their heads and thinks that the sky is green and the earth is blue. Fifty years we have had to inhabit a world filled with such fools and been unable even to enjoy the spectable since, though fools they may be, they control the presses and disseminate their inanities as truth. In the absence of reforms, they invent them. Face to face with despotism, they ignore it. What they would not welcome for themselves they applaud as a heaven-sent dispensation for Cubans. It is thanks to them that even after 50 years of unrelenting tyranny the truth about the nature of Communism in Cuba is rarely acknowledged even by those in a position to know the truth. Can you imagine if in 1945 the same things were being said and written about Nazi Germany as in 1933? If Chamberlain still called for appeasement and Lindbergh still praised the "German Miracle" after the war as they had before it? Well, Castro has waged a 50-year war against the Cuban people which has devastated the island and decimated its people and still it's Jan. 1, 1959 as far as most of the media are concerned.
Conservative parlimentarian and human rights activist Edward McMillan-Scott, MEP was expelled by the Castro regime in November 2006 because he had unauthorized contacts with Cuban dissidents while on an official visit to Cuba on behalf of the EU Democracy Task Force. His remarks were in response to Labour's Deputy Leader Harriet Harman's assertion that Fidel Castro was "a hero of the Left."
Confronted as we are every day by misrepresentations of the Castro regime which are the grist of 99% of the media's reportage on Communist Cuba, it is well to remember that not everybody is fooled. There are friends of Cuban freedom in the world. Although we tend to focus on the enemies because their words are the ones which media report and dwell upon, we should not ignore nor fail to praise the lonely voices that rise in condemnation of the despoilers of our country.
Sometimes it seems as if we are trapped in a Swiftian satire, where nothing is as it seems, and everybody walks on their heads and thinks that the sky is green and the earth is blue. Fifty years we have had to inhabit a world filled with such fools and been unable even to enjoy the spectable since, though fools they may be, they control the presses and disseminate their inanities as truth. In the absence of reforms, they invent them. Face to face with despotism, they ignore it. What they would not welcome for themselves they applaud as a heaven-sent dispensation for Cubans. It is thanks to them that even after 50 years of unrelenting tyranny the truth about the nature of Communism in Cuba is rarely acknowledged even by those in a position to know the truth. Can you imagine if in 1945 the same things were being said and written about Nazi Germany as in 1933? If Chamberlain still called for appeasement and Lindbergh still praised the "German Miracle" after the war as they had before it? Well, Castro has waged a 50-year war against the Cuban people which has devastated the island and decimated its people and still it's Jan. 1, 1959 as far as most of the media are concerned.
Monday, February 25, 2008
FLASH!!! George Moneo Has Resigned Or Been Ousted from Babalú
In the most characteristic Stalinist manner, without an explanation but consonant with its unethical practices and complete want of transparency, George Moneo's name has disappeared from Babalú's masthead as a contributing writer. Although he posted irregularly by his own admission and rarely about Cuba, Moneo was more than just another of Babalú's "cadre" of co-editors. Preceded in seriority only but Henry Gómez and Val Prieto himself, Moneo was well-known for his low threshold of tolerance for the opinions of others, and although not the only one to censor commenters at Babalú, he seemed to take the most pleasure in it and was the most vocal about it. It is ironic, therefore, that George himself should have been ousted from Babalú for expressing opinions that Val deemed diversionary and unacceptable.
As we noted early this morning, George's post asserting that Babalú was a "conservative blog" and not one dedicated exclusively to Cuba was unceremoniously yanked from today's featured line-up. As this is not an uncommon occurrence at Babalú, where posts tend to vanish only to reappear days or even months later, we at first assumed that George had thought better of it and removed the controversial post himself or agreed to its removal. Since Babalú bills itself as "an island on the net without a bearded dictator," George's assertion that the "island" was not "insular" (that is, an island) seemed to contradict its mission statement and caused deep distress to its founder Val Prieto, self-proclaimed father of the Cuban blogosphere.
Both George and Henry had tried Val's patience lately by turning Babalú into an anti-McCain blog, ignoring the Republican candidate's lifelong support for Cuban freedom and focusing, instead, on the fact that he was not a Newt Gingrich clone and hence unworthy in their estimation to carry his party's banner. Henry was by far more dogmatic and persistent in his bashing of McCain and cheerleading for Barack Obama. Val, however, was no doubt afraid to move against Henry who is the blog's most prolific writer and plays a bigger role in setting its agenda than does Val. By purging George, Val not only rids himself of an insidious influence but sends a timely warning to Henry that Babalú is his baby and that he won't become a pariah in Republican circles, no longer to receive invitations to the White House or participate in conference calls on Cuba policy, because others use Babalú to wage their internecine turf wars against his interests.
Moneo's departure, although it will hardly be felt at Babalú, will be more conspicuous from the Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour, which he has hosted more frequently lately than either Henry or Val. Although with ten regular listeners to the show's live broadcast even this cannot be said to impact it too much.
POSTSCRIPT:
Now all the contributing writers' names have disappeared from Babalú's masthead, leaving only Val's as the editor. No doubt this was done to conceal the absence of George Moneo's name.
As we noted early this morning, George's post asserting that Babalú was a "conservative blog" and not one dedicated exclusively to Cuba was unceremoniously yanked from today's featured line-up. As this is not an uncommon occurrence at Babalú, where posts tend to vanish only to reappear days or even months later, we at first assumed that George had thought better of it and removed the controversial post himself or agreed to its removal. Since Babalú bills itself as "an island on the net without a bearded dictator," George's assertion that the "island" was not "insular" (that is, an island) seemed to contradict its mission statement and caused deep distress to its founder Val Prieto, self-proclaimed father of the Cuban blogosphere.
Both George and Henry had tried Val's patience lately by turning Babalú into an anti-McCain blog, ignoring the Republican candidate's lifelong support for Cuban freedom and focusing, instead, on the fact that he was not a Newt Gingrich clone and hence unworthy in their estimation to carry his party's banner. Henry was by far more dogmatic and persistent in his bashing of McCain and cheerleading for Barack Obama. Val, however, was no doubt afraid to move against Henry who is the blog's most prolific writer and plays a bigger role in setting its agenda than does Val. By purging George, Val not only rids himself of an insidious influence but sends a timely warning to Henry that Babalú is his baby and that he won't become a pariah in Republican circles, no longer to receive invitations to the White House or participate in conference calls on Cuba policy, because others use Babalú to wage their internecine turf wars against his interests.
Moneo's departure, although it will hardly be felt at Babalú, will be more conspicuous from the Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour, which he has hosted more frequently lately than either Henry or Val. Although with ten regular listeners to the show's live broadcast even this cannot be said to impact it too much.
POSTSCRIPT:
Now all the contributing writers' names have disappeared from Babalú's masthead, leaving only Val's as the editor. No doubt this was done to conceal the absence of George Moneo's name.
Notable & Apocalyptic: George Moneo Predicts End of Western Civilization
"I rarely write about Cuban issues. We have a superb cadre of writers who regularly write on this blog's primary subject. But this blog is also a conservative blog. We are a blog that has to deal with issues beyond the one that wounds us on a daily basis. Provincial and insular we are not." — George Moneo, "Thoughtful Analysis About Our Future," Babalú, February 25, 2008
First of all, the "Thoughful Analysis" is not Moneo's. Of course, no one would expect it to be.
Secondly, "cadre of writers?"
Cadre?
Of all the words in the dictionary to describe a group, George chooses "cadre?"
Ever since Marxism appropriated and popularized the word, cadre has meant a revolutionary cell. The phrase "superb cadre" adds a certain Pravdian touch which could only have been improved by the addition of "well-disciplined."
A "conservative blog" that appropriates Marxist terminology? Well, consistency is not something that we have come to expect from Babalú either.
Of course, we are all aware that George rarely writes about Cuba (which is a blessing) and that Babalú has not been much concerned recently with its "primary subject," preferring, instead, to focus on the subject of primaries. George and Henry have both used Babalú as a platform from which to dump on John McCain and further the presidential aspirations of Barack Obama.
Now George warns us of the imminent collapse of Western civilization as presaged by Baron Boddissey and Dymphna from the Gates of Vienna blog. According to them, that collapse was consummated 94 years ago in Europe, and, presumably, will soon reach such backwater reboubts as the United States.
How does George suppose that Western civilization will die in America? Well, not through a World War such as precipitated its demise in Europe. George thinks that Muslims will have something to do with it, not an improbable conjecture since they are its declared enemies.
Personally, I have always thought it would be liberals (i.e. socialists) who destroy Western civilization. But there is no reason that both liberal and Muslims can't join efforts to accomplish their common end. In fact, many believe they already have.
The name of this synthesis is Barack Hussein Obama.
You know, George, the guy you and Henry are trying to make president of the United States to show just how uninsular and unprovincial you are.
POSTSCRIPT:
George's post has gone amissing at Babalú. Apparently it did not sit well with Val that George pronounced Babalú to be not just "primarily" a blog about Cuba but a "conservative blog" as well. Google still has the cache. But what would be the point of reproducing it here? To prove that Babalú censors even its own editors? Doesn't everybody already know that? To save George's musings for posterity? Posterity will not thank us. Besides, the moment that this "Postscript" is published, the vanished post will reappear.
First of all, the "Thoughful Analysis" is not Moneo's. Of course, no one would expect it to be.
Secondly, "cadre of writers?"
Cadre?
Of all the words in the dictionary to describe a group, George chooses "cadre?"
Ever since Marxism appropriated and popularized the word, cadre has meant a revolutionary cell. The phrase "superb cadre" adds a certain Pravdian touch which could only have been improved by the addition of "well-disciplined."
A "conservative blog" that appropriates Marxist terminology? Well, consistency is not something that we have come to expect from Babalú either.
Of course, we are all aware that George rarely writes about Cuba (which is a blessing) and that Babalú has not been much concerned recently with its "primary subject," preferring, instead, to focus on the subject of primaries. George and Henry have both used Babalú as a platform from which to dump on John McCain and further the presidential aspirations of Barack Obama.
Now George warns us of the imminent collapse of Western civilization as presaged by Baron Boddissey and Dymphna from the Gates of Vienna blog. According to them, that collapse was consummated 94 years ago in Europe, and, presumably, will soon reach such backwater reboubts as the United States.
How does George suppose that Western civilization will die in America? Well, not through a World War such as precipitated its demise in Europe. George thinks that Muslims will have something to do with it, not an improbable conjecture since they are its declared enemies.
Personally, I have always thought it would be liberals (i.e. socialists) who destroy Western civilization. But there is no reason that both liberal and Muslims can't join efforts to accomplish their common end. In fact, many believe they already have.
The name of this synthesis is Barack Hussein Obama.
You know, George, the guy you and Henry are trying to make president of the United States to show just how uninsular and unprovincial you are.
POSTSCRIPT:
George's post has gone amissing at Babalú. Apparently it did not sit well with Val that George pronounced Babalú to be not just "primarily" a blog about Cuba but a "conservative blog" as well. Google still has the cache. But what would be the point of reproducing it here? To prove that Babalú censors even its own editors? Doesn't everybody already know that? To save George's musings for posterity? Posterity will not thank us. Besides, the moment that this "Postscript" is published, the vanished post will reappear.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
"Habemus Tyrannus!"
Ah, what fantastical creatures the media can conjure from thin air! Now there are "lawmakers" in Cuba where there is no law, only the caprices of Doña Lina's sons.
Well, the "lawmakers" of Cuba's one-party police state have given the nod to Raúl as all the world (except Cuba) waited with bated breath for the white smoke to signal, "Habemus tyrannus!"
Well, the "lawmakers" of Cuba's one-party police state have given the nod to Raúl as all the world (except Cuba) waited with bated breath for the white smoke to signal, "Habemus tyrannus!"
Fidelito: The Lite-Horse Candidate
We have noticed an unusual number of visitors who have been directed to RCAB through a Google search for "Fidelito." Can there possibly be those who believe that Fidel's eldest son and spitting image, Fidel Castro y Díaz-Balart, will be tapped to succeed him? Well, his "merits" are certainly on a par with Kim Il Jung's, and his mom, Lincoln and Mario's aunt Marta, has been in Cuba for nearly 2 years lobbying for her 60-year old 300 lbs. baby to succeed her ex. It is also said that she enjoys massaging Fidel Sr.'s feet. More importantly, Uncle Raúl, who raised him because Fidel treats his progeny like a male lion, is said to be very fond of him, too.
If you want to know more about Fidelito, here's where to go:
Cuba's Al Gore: Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart
If you want to know more about Fidelito, here's where to go:
Cuba's Al Gore: Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart
El Grito de Baire
Today marks the 113th anniversary of the "Grito de Baire" (Battle Cry of Baire), the start of Martí's Revolution which culminated, after nearly a half-century of armed struggle, in Cuba's independence. Those 50 years (1850-1898) were the most heroic in our country's history, with 300,000 of our countrymen perishing on the battlefield and another 300,000 (mostly women and children) in Spanish concentration camps. This out of a population which struggled to rise above 3 million in the 19th century. The population of the Thirteen Colonies at the time of the American Revolution was also approximately 3 million. Washington's soldiers sustained a total of 4000 casualties in the whole course of the American Revolution. Something to remember when the "pressure-cooker" theorists cast aspersions on Cuban heroism or contrast what we have sacrificed to obtain our freedom to the price which Americans have paid to maintain theirs.
The difference between that glorious epoch and today is that Cuba was not then an impermeable island fortress; for Spanish oppression, although terrible, was not systematic and even Cuban slaves enjoyed more rights then than do Cuban citizens today. U.S. Neutrality laws, which exist to preserve tyrannic but stable regimes in power, were an impediment then as now to Cuban freedom, but the U.S. had not entered yet into an international agreement to become the guarantor of tyranny on the island as it would in 1962. Even if U.S. presidents betrayed the rebels' plans to the Spanish, seized their expeditions, confiscated their weapons and imprisoned their leaders while they waited for the ripe apple to fall into America's lap, the people of the United States, whose sympathies were always with the Cubans, refused to assist their government in prosecuting those earlier freedom fighters. Thousands of indictments were obtained against the Cuban patriots but not one single conviction was ever secured from an American jury.
With the unremitting enmity of successive U.S. administrations, but with the good-will of the American people and the so-called "yellow press," Cubans had already won the war on the ground and were in effective control of 90 percent of the island's territory when the U.S., using the fortuitous explosion of the U.S.S. Maine as a pretext, invaded Cuba to seize the ripe apple at the last moment from Spain and to deny the rebels their just victory. For 50 years the U.S. refused to throw a lifeline to the Cuban rebels as France and even Spain had done for them in 1776, and when Cubans finally obtained alone what they might have won 50 or 30 years earlier with U.S. assistance, the Americans swooped down to secure "peace and order" on the island. This insignificant if calamitous episode within Cuba's War of Independence is known as the "Spanish-American War" (American arrogance going so far as to ignore the participation of the main actors). Americans also once called it the "Splendid Little War" because it cost them less than 400 casualties (most of these from chronic diarrhea). Then came the Treaty of Paris, the U.S. occupation of the island, the Platt Amendment and the seizure of Guantánamo Bay. (Do the French still have their naval base at Chesapeake Bay?).
Even after Cuba became a republic under American tutelage in 1902, Cubans never ceased their struggle to realize completely the dream of José Marti, Antonio Maceo and all Cuban patriots who preceeded and followed them: a free, independent, sovereign and democratic republic. In 1933, Cubans finally secured through another revolution the abrogation of the Platt Amendment and the nightmare of 1898 (except for Guantánamo) seemed finally to have been overcome.
Or so it seemed. But some nightmares have a tendency to reassert themselves, with different demons and horrors. We can never really put history behind us.
A Brief History of the Cuban Republic (1902-1958)
The History of The Cuban Republic, Part II (1940-1952)
The difference between that glorious epoch and today is that Cuba was not then an impermeable island fortress; for Spanish oppression, although terrible, was not systematic and even Cuban slaves enjoyed more rights then than do Cuban citizens today. U.S. Neutrality laws, which exist to preserve tyrannic but stable regimes in power, were an impediment then as now to Cuban freedom, but the U.S. had not entered yet into an international agreement to become the guarantor of tyranny on the island as it would in 1962. Even if U.S. presidents betrayed the rebels' plans to the Spanish, seized their expeditions, confiscated their weapons and imprisoned their leaders while they waited for the ripe apple to fall into America's lap, the people of the United States, whose sympathies were always with the Cubans, refused to assist their government in prosecuting those earlier freedom fighters. Thousands of indictments were obtained against the Cuban patriots but not one single conviction was ever secured from an American jury.
With the unremitting enmity of successive U.S. administrations, but with the good-will of the American people and the so-called "yellow press," Cubans had already won the war on the ground and were in effective control of 90 percent of the island's territory when the U.S., using the fortuitous explosion of the U.S.S. Maine as a pretext, invaded Cuba to seize the ripe apple at the last moment from Spain and to deny the rebels their just victory. For 50 years the U.S. refused to throw a lifeline to the Cuban rebels as France and even Spain had done for them in 1776, and when Cubans finally obtained alone what they might have won 50 or 30 years earlier with U.S. assistance, the Americans swooped down to secure "peace and order" on the island. This insignificant if calamitous episode within Cuba's War of Independence is known as the "Spanish-American War" (American arrogance going so far as to ignore the participation of the main actors). Americans also once called it the "Splendid Little War" because it cost them less than 400 casualties (most of these from chronic diarrhea). Then came the Treaty of Paris, the U.S. occupation of the island, the Platt Amendment and the seizure of Guantánamo Bay. (Do the French still have their naval base at Chesapeake Bay?).
Even after Cuba became a republic under American tutelage in 1902, Cubans never ceased their struggle to realize completely the dream of José Marti, Antonio Maceo and all Cuban patriots who preceeded and followed them: a free, independent, sovereign and democratic republic. In 1933, Cubans finally secured through another revolution the abrogation of the Platt Amendment and the nightmare of 1898 (except for Guantánamo) seemed finally to have been overcome.
Or so it seemed. But some nightmares have a tendency to reassert themselves, with different demons and horrors. We can never really put history behind us.
A Brief History of the Cuban Republic (1902-1958)
The History of The Cuban Republic, Part II (1940-1952)
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Notable & Grotesque: Political Animal Compares John McCain to Jeffrey Dahmer
"With 30 years in Washington D.C., McCain is sure to have more skeletons in his closet than Jeffrey Dahmer. — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "McCain, the Media and Castro," Babalú, February 23, 2008
We know Henry's plan already. He has not been in the least reticent to reveal it. He wants John McCain to lose. Badly. So that Barack Obama can introduce socialism with a big "S" in the United States and recognize and underwrite it in Cuba. Then in four years, according to Henry's script, the whole nation will rise up against the Democrats and usher Newt Gingrich into the Oval Office or some other suitably cretinous xenophobe who will restore America to the status quo ante (that is, exactly where we are today).
Henry may be right about his country. America has shown itself to be very resilient in the past and may well withstand 4 years of unrelenting assault on its institutions and foundational beliefs. Maybe. But you can be sure that Cuban freedom will become an even more remote prospect if not an altogether unreachable one if Obama is allowed to "open Cuba," that is, to consolidate Communism in Cuba as Richard Nixon did in China.
Barack Obama is the promised land that Fidel Castro has been wondering 49 years in search of in a desert of his own making. Like Moses, Castro has even recognized that he must step aside for his dream to be realized and has resigned as head of state to make it easier for Obama to negotiate with his successors and open to them a new wondrous era of subsidies and limitless credits. At the beginning of the Revolution, Obama's idol of clay established the U.S. as the guarantor of Communism in Cuba under the terms of the Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact. Now his organic successor and continuator — or so Obama has been acclaimed by Kennedy's "Holy Grail" — will extend not only military protection to Castro's island sultanate but pay it tribute as well.
Henry proclaimed himself long ago to be an "American Cuban," which apparently means that it is the interests of the U.S. which are paramount to him. I cannot see how the interests of either the American or the Cuban people would be served by an Obama presidency. But it is neither American nor Cuban interests that really matter to Henry but the interests (as he perceives them) of his party, or rather, of the most reactionary faction of his party. In this, Henry has much in common with Fidel himself and other "purists" who are more than willing to bleed their people and wreck their country to maintain a social order amiable to their interests ideological and otherwise.
Henry, whose interests line up with Castro's more every day, is now chastising McCain for having publicly criticized Castro because this will supposedly evoke a counter-reaction from the media that might serve Castro's interests and damage McCain's and ours: "In attacking Barack Obama on his stance with regards to Cuba, McCain is certainly going to raise the hackles of the news media. You see Cuba is a sacred cow for the them. There are probably few issues that the mainstream media are as unanimous about as the embargo and U.S./Cuba relations. McCain should batten down the hatches now that he's taken a position contrary to his erstwhile buddies in the media."
First of all, this is not a new position for McCain who has been a consistent champion of Cuban freedom for the 30 years that he has been in the Senate, indeed, a champion in words and deeds long before that. Is this one of those "skeletons" which Henry thinks McCain should keep in his closet? No, McCain has never concealed in a "closet" or anywhere else his unconditional support for democracy in Cuba.
Henry believes this support to be a drawback. The solution, according to the political animal since the age of 5, is for McCain to stop criticizing both Obama and Castro. That way "his ertswhile buddies in the media," will, supposedly, return the favor and not criticize him. Right? No. Henry admits that the media will criticize him regardless because, in a particularly despicable phrase even for him, "[McCain] has more skeletons in his closet than Jeffrey Dahmer." At least that is what Henry hopes and the media will disappoint him sorely if they do not discover those "skeletons." Although Henry "applauds" McCain's anti-Castro rhetoric because "it is the truth," it is not a truth which he believes the American people are not ready for (if not now, when?) and he wishes that McCain would stuff his criticisms in that closet to which he has just alluded with whatever else may be "politically incorrect" in his past.
Whatever McCain does or does not say, the media will savage him as it would any other Republican. That is what the media do. It would not make any sense for McCain to court their favor when he can never hope to have it, much less to try to skirt their disapproval by becoming something he is not. His only hope is to hold steadfast to his beliefs and hope that his opponent will also. Then it shall be an easy choice for Americans in November.
What no one in his right mind, least of all a Cuban, should ever do is advice McCain to throw Cuba to the media jackals.
I confess that before becoming acquainted with Henry I had never known in the fullness of its meaning what has been described a "useful idiot." I knew, of course, that the breed existed and was by no means a new creation. What I did not understand until now is that they could really be oblivious to the harm they do and to the fact that they are accomplices of evil. But now I realize that a man can be so wrong in the estimate of his own abilities that he can serve the devil while thinking himself on the side of the angels. Of course, after he has been confronted with that fact time and again he longer has the excuse of ignorance although pride may supply its place; but then he would no longer be a "useful idiot" but a conscious agent of those nefarious interests.
We know Henry's plan already. He has not been in the least reticent to reveal it. He wants John McCain to lose. Badly. So that Barack Obama can introduce socialism with a big "S" in the United States and recognize and underwrite it in Cuba. Then in four years, according to Henry's script, the whole nation will rise up against the Democrats and usher Newt Gingrich into the Oval Office or some other suitably cretinous xenophobe who will restore America to the status quo ante (that is, exactly where we are today).
Henry may be right about his country. America has shown itself to be very resilient in the past and may well withstand 4 years of unrelenting assault on its institutions and foundational beliefs. Maybe. But you can be sure that Cuban freedom will become an even more remote prospect if not an altogether unreachable one if Obama is allowed to "open Cuba," that is, to consolidate Communism in Cuba as Richard Nixon did in China.
Barack Obama is the promised land that Fidel Castro has been wondering 49 years in search of in a desert of his own making. Like Moses, Castro has even recognized that he must step aside for his dream to be realized and has resigned as head of state to make it easier for Obama to negotiate with his successors and open to them a new wondrous era of subsidies and limitless credits. At the beginning of the Revolution, Obama's idol of clay established the U.S. as the guarantor of Communism in Cuba under the terms of the Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact. Now his organic successor and continuator — or so Obama has been acclaimed by Kennedy's "Holy Grail" — will extend not only military protection to Castro's island sultanate but pay it tribute as well.
Henry proclaimed himself long ago to be an "American Cuban," which apparently means that it is the interests of the U.S. which are paramount to him. I cannot see how the interests of either the American or the Cuban people would be served by an Obama presidency. But it is neither American nor Cuban interests that really matter to Henry but the interests (as he perceives them) of his party, or rather, of the most reactionary faction of his party. In this, Henry has much in common with Fidel himself and other "purists" who are more than willing to bleed their people and wreck their country to maintain a social order amiable to their interests ideological and otherwise.
Henry, whose interests line up with Castro's more every day, is now chastising McCain for having publicly criticized Castro because this will supposedly evoke a counter-reaction from the media that might serve Castro's interests and damage McCain's and ours: "In attacking Barack Obama on his stance with regards to Cuba, McCain is certainly going to raise the hackles of the news media. You see Cuba is a sacred cow for the them. There are probably few issues that the mainstream media are as unanimous about as the embargo and U.S./Cuba relations. McCain should batten down the hatches now that he's taken a position contrary to his erstwhile buddies in the media."
First of all, this is not a new position for McCain who has been a consistent champion of Cuban freedom for the 30 years that he has been in the Senate, indeed, a champion in words and deeds long before that. Is this one of those "skeletons" which Henry thinks McCain should keep in his closet? No, McCain has never concealed in a "closet" or anywhere else his unconditional support for democracy in Cuba.
Henry believes this support to be a drawback. The solution, according to the political animal since the age of 5, is for McCain to stop criticizing both Obama and Castro. That way "his ertswhile buddies in the media," will, supposedly, return the favor and not criticize him. Right? No. Henry admits that the media will criticize him regardless because, in a particularly despicable phrase even for him, "[McCain] has more skeletons in his closet than Jeffrey Dahmer." At least that is what Henry hopes and the media will disappoint him sorely if they do not discover those "skeletons." Although Henry "applauds" McCain's anti-Castro rhetoric because "it is the truth," it is not a truth which he believes the American people are not ready for (if not now, when?) and he wishes that McCain would stuff his criticisms in that closet to which he has just alluded with whatever else may be "politically incorrect" in his past.
Whatever McCain does or does not say, the media will savage him as it would any other Republican. That is what the media do. It would not make any sense for McCain to court their favor when he can never hope to have it, much less to try to skirt their disapproval by becoming something he is not. His only hope is to hold steadfast to his beliefs and hope that his opponent will also. Then it shall be an easy choice for Americans in November.
What no one in his right mind, least of all a Cuban, should ever do is advice McCain to throw Cuba to the media jackals.
I confess that before becoming acquainted with Henry I had never known in the fullness of its meaning what has been described a "useful idiot." I knew, of course, that the breed existed and was by no means a new creation. What I did not understand until now is that they could really be oblivious to the harm they do and to the fact that they are accomplices of evil. But now I realize that a man can be so wrong in the estimate of his own abilities that he can serve the devil while thinking himself on the side of the angels. Of course, after he has been confronted with that fact time and again he longer has the excuse of ignorance although pride may supply its place; but then he would no longer be a "useful idiot" but a conscious agent of those nefarious interests.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Notable & to the Point: Fidel Castro Should Be Dead
"I just want to mention one issue of the day with you, and that is Cuba. As you know, Fidel Castro announced that he would not remain as president — whatever that means. And I hope that he has the opportunity to meet Karl Marx very soon. But the point is that apparently he's trying to groom his brother Raúl [to succeed him]. My friends, Raúl is worse in many respects than Fidel was. The people of Cuba deserve to have the prisons emptied, they deserve human rights organizations working there, and they deserve free and fair elections. That's our goal for Cuba, not perpetuation of the Fidel Castro regime. And we ought to make it very, very clear that we will not provide aid or assistance until the prisons are emptied of the political prisoners... I'm very worried about people who want to extend aid and assistance now, while this regime is in power [for] that would help them remain in power. And, by the way, unless those things happen, I see no reason, whatsoever — whatsoever — to sit down and have unconditional talks with Raul Castro." — John McCain, remarks in Indianapolis, February 22, 2008
In case some idiot still wants to know the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama, there it is. In off the cuff remarks before an audience of 150 in Indianapolis with nary a Cuban-American around and without even mentioning the name of his likely opponent in November's election, John McCain succinctly explained the difference between morality and amorality, principles and opportunism, intransigence and accommodation as these apply to Cuba. He also expressed without apologies, because such sentiments require none, his hope that the tyrant may soon meet his inspiration. This would surely be a greater punishment to Marx, who could not have imagined that the last Western defender of his superannuated philosophy would be a Latin American, as Marx despised all Latin Americans with a passion, from his brilliant Cuban son-in-law Pablo Lafargue whom he likened to a "gorilla" to Simón Bolívar whom he called "the most cowardly, brutal and miserable of wretches."
It was no surprise, of course, to hear Castro's admirers waxing with indignation at the mere mention of their idol's overdue immateriality. We had heard them before when Cuban exiles were celebrating openly, and those on the island in the secret of their hearts, what seemed then Castro's imminent demise. I have never understood why a tyrant's life is deemed sacrosanct and not those of his victims, or how anyone could possibly wish health and a long life to one whose continued existence implies the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people. All human life is sacred that respects the sanctity of life. Those who make humans their prey or who degrade the human condition by reducing others to slavery have renounced their own humanity and forfeited any claims to human sympathy. Men like John McCain, who have suffered in flesh and bone man's inhumanity to man, know this well enough. His opposition to torture under any circumstances attests to his own humane feelings and even more so his desire that all tyrants should meet divine justice as soon as possible.
In case some idiot still wants to know the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama, there it is. In off the cuff remarks before an audience of 150 in Indianapolis with nary a Cuban-American around and without even mentioning the name of his likely opponent in November's election, John McCain succinctly explained the difference between morality and amorality, principles and opportunism, intransigence and accommodation as these apply to Cuba. He also expressed without apologies, because such sentiments require none, his hope that the tyrant may soon meet his inspiration. This would surely be a greater punishment to Marx, who could not have imagined that the last Western defender of his superannuated philosophy would be a Latin American, as Marx despised all Latin Americans with a passion, from his brilliant Cuban son-in-law Pablo Lafargue whom he likened to a "gorilla" to Simón Bolívar whom he called "the most cowardly, brutal and miserable of wretches."
It was no surprise, of course, to hear Castro's admirers waxing with indignation at the mere mention of their idol's overdue immateriality. We had heard them before when Cuban exiles were celebrating openly, and those on the island in the secret of their hearts, what seemed then Castro's imminent demise. I have never understood why a tyrant's life is deemed sacrosanct and not those of his victims, or how anyone could possibly wish health and a long life to one whose continued existence implies the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people. All human life is sacred that respects the sanctity of life. Those who make humans their prey or who degrade the human condition by reducing others to slavery have renounced their own humanity and forfeited any claims to human sympathy. Men like John McCain, who have suffered in flesh and bone man's inhumanity to man, know this well enough. His opposition to torture under any circumstances attests to his own humane feelings and even more so his desire that all tyrants should meet divine justice as soon as possible.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Is Castro's So-Called "Resignation" A Ruse?
Hold the presses, stop the videocameras! The Great Deceiver may have fooled us again.
Is Fidel Castro really retiring for good and always from all the posts which he has bestowed on himself in a life rich with such "distinctions?"
On Tuesday, Castro declared that he would not seek the office of president of the council of State and would relinquish his post as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He presented his resignation in an article published in Granma. This made perfect sense since there is no person or organism in Cuba authorized to receive his resignation except Fidel Castro himself. He is, after all, the State. Having accepted his own resignation and reiterated his irrevocable determination not to convince himself to reconsider his decision nor allow anyone else to dissuade him ["I will neither aspire to nor accept, I repeat, I will neither aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief"], he communicated the news to all and sundry in his occasional column formerly known as "Reflections of the Comandante" and henceworth to be known as "Reflections of Citizen Fidel." This news took most by surprise but satisfied few. In truth, it was not the news that most hoped to hear and had long anticipated since his late illness. Perhaps that was the reason that it was taken at face value. Maybe it shouldn't have been.
Castro's resignation did not mention the position which he has held the longest and which has traditionally been the most important in a Communist state. Castro nowhere relinquishes his duties as First Secretary of the Cuban Communist Party. Yet when he transferred power provisionally to Raúl Castro on August 1, 2006, he listed that office first among those which he was delegating to Raúl:
"1) I delegate provisionally my duties as first secretary of the Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party to the second secretary, comrade Raúl Castro Ruz.
"2) I delegate provisionally my duties as commander-in-chief of the heroic Revolutionary Armed Forces to the aforementioned comrade, Army Gen. Raúl Castro Ruz.
"3) I delegate provisionally my duties as president of the Council of State and of the government of the republic of Cuba to the first vice president, comrade Raúl Castro Ruz."
It would be hard to believe that Fidel's failure to mention his most important self-appointed post in his letter of resignation could be a careless omission on his part. It is as if the Queen of England had abdicated her titles as Defender of the Faith and Head of the British Commonwealth but forgotten to include her queenly title.
Fidel ended his last "Reflection" with the admonition that "this is not good-bye." Perhaps we should take him at his word, though nothing is more fraught with folly.
Is Fidel Castro really retiring for good and always from all the posts which he has bestowed on himself in a life rich with such "distinctions?"
On Tuesday, Castro declared that he would not seek the office of president of the council of State and would relinquish his post as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He presented his resignation in an article published in Granma. This made perfect sense since there is no person or organism in Cuba authorized to receive his resignation except Fidel Castro himself. He is, after all, the State. Having accepted his own resignation and reiterated his irrevocable determination not to convince himself to reconsider his decision nor allow anyone else to dissuade him ["I will neither aspire to nor accept, I repeat, I will neither aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief"], he communicated the news to all and sundry in his occasional column formerly known as "Reflections of the Comandante" and henceworth to be known as "Reflections of Citizen Fidel." This news took most by surprise but satisfied few. In truth, it was not the news that most hoped to hear and had long anticipated since his late illness. Perhaps that was the reason that it was taken at face value. Maybe it shouldn't have been.
Castro's resignation did not mention the position which he has held the longest and which has traditionally been the most important in a Communist state. Castro nowhere relinquishes his duties as First Secretary of the Cuban Communist Party. Yet when he transferred power provisionally to Raúl Castro on August 1, 2006, he listed that office first among those which he was delegating to Raúl:
"1) I delegate provisionally my duties as first secretary of the Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party to the second secretary, comrade Raúl Castro Ruz.
"2) I delegate provisionally my duties as commander-in-chief of the heroic Revolutionary Armed Forces to the aforementioned comrade, Army Gen. Raúl Castro Ruz.
"3) I delegate provisionally my duties as president of the Council of State and of the government of the republic of Cuba to the first vice president, comrade Raúl Castro Ruz."
It would be hard to believe that Fidel's failure to mention his most important self-appointed post in his letter of resignation could be a careless omission on his part. It is as if the Queen of England had abdicated her titles as Defender of the Faith and Head of the British Commonwealth but forgotten to include her queenly title.
Fidel ended his last "Reflection" with the admonition that "this is not good-bye." Perhaps we should take him at his word, though nothing is more fraught with folly.
Notable & Proud At Last: Michelle Obama
"Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change [i.e. Obama].” — Michelle Obama, speech in Milwaukee, February 18, 2008
Imagine how few Americans would feel proud of their country if pride were conditioned on becoming First Lady.
Michelle Obama lives the American Dream while greedily cutting off for herself a piece of the American Nightmare, which she has never lived either as a woman or as a black.
I think they call that "fronting" nowadays.
Imagine how few Americans would feel proud of their country if pride were conditioned on becoming First Lady.
Michelle Obama lives the American Dream while greedily cutting off for herself a piece of the American Nightmare, which she has never lived either as a woman or as a black.
I think they call that "fronting" nowadays.
Notable & Ivied: Frederick Douglass and "Nas" Show the Way to Obama
"It could be said that Obama's way has been prepared not my Colin Powell, dutifully holding up the vial at the U.N., but by Nelson Mandela, who emerged from his prison not bitter, calling for reconciliation. It is possible that the emerging youth vote is an anti-'War on Terror' vote, not just an anti-Iraq War vote. Mandela was also the one figure on the world stage who persuaded us that he was exactly what he seemed to be. The anti-apartheid movement was one of the few things happening on campuses in the 1980s. Since then white students in their thousands have taken Black Studies classes, reading the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, bringing Derrida to bear in their term papers on the hip-hop artist Nas's debut album, Illmatic, even as black student enrollment has been falling." — Darryl Pinckney, "Dreams from Obama," The New York Review of Books, March 6, 2008 issue
Besides the fact that the writer is constitutionally incapable of developing his thoughts in a cogent manner (not that his thoughts are worth much refinement), two things are obvious here: Pinckney knows as much about the historical (as opposed to iconic) Nelson Mandela as he does about the lives of college students today. I find it remarkable that his meanderings would be published in the preeminent American literary journal, but, of course, he's there to fill a niche and certainly not Frederick Douglass'.
His comparison of Obama to Mandela, though intended as a compliment, of course, is perilously close to the truth. Their objectives, if not their methods, are the same. There is also great richness in his assertion that "Mandela was also the one figure on the world stage who persuaded us that he was exactly what he seemed to be." The key to Mandela's "success on the world stage" is that he convinced (almost) everybody that he was what he was not. There the parallel to Barack Obama couldn't be closer or scarier.
Pinckney's comparison of Frederick Douglass, one of the glories of black history and black letters, to the hip-hop artist Nas is outrageous. His assertion that it is white students who have validated this relation is even more ridiculous. White kids have no doubt contributed to the sale of Nas' albums and college professors' to the sale of Douglass' autobiography. And? "A" and "B" are still unconnected. Perhaps Pinckney means to imply that Obama is the bridge that connects Douglass' struggle to be free to Nas' struggle to be even richer. There he might have something except that the name of that bridge is Booker T. Washington.
Still, the image — actually, the fantasy — of white college kids listening to Nas' Illmatic album while attempting to deconstruct it with their well-thumbed copies of Derrida, suddenly exclaiming "Eureka, Obama is the answer!" is something that only a college professor could believe or publish.
Besides the fact that the writer is constitutionally incapable of developing his thoughts in a cogent manner (not that his thoughts are worth much refinement), two things are obvious here: Pinckney knows as much about the historical (as opposed to iconic) Nelson Mandela as he does about the lives of college students today. I find it remarkable that his meanderings would be published in the preeminent American literary journal, but, of course, he's there to fill a niche and certainly not Frederick Douglass'.
His comparison of Obama to Mandela, though intended as a compliment, of course, is perilously close to the truth. Their objectives, if not their methods, are the same. There is also great richness in his assertion that "Mandela was also the one figure on the world stage who persuaded us that he was exactly what he seemed to be." The key to Mandela's "success on the world stage" is that he convinced (almost) everybody that he was what he was not. There the parallel to Barack Obama couldn't be closer or scarier.
Pinckney's comparison of Frederick Douglass, one of the glories of black history and black letters, to the hip-hop artist Nas is outrageous. His assertion that it is white students who have validated this relation is even more ridiculous. White kids have no doubt contributed to the sale of Nas' albums and college professors' to the sale of Douglass' autobiography. And? "A" and "B" are still unconnected. Perhaps Pinckney means to imply that Obama is the bridge that connects Douglass' struggle to be free to Nas' struggle to be even richer. There he might have something except that the name of that bridge is Booker T. Washington.
Still, the image — actually, the fantasy — of white college kids listening to Nas' Illmatic album while attempting to deconstruct it with their well-thumbed copies of Derrida, suddenly exclaiming "Eureka, Obama is the answer!" is something that only a college professor could believe or publish.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Fidel's Retirement Causes Canadians to Lament Their Support of Him
It cannot be easy to be America's Northern neighbor. Of course, it is nothing like being America's Southern neighbor. Americans may think that Canucks are quaint but they don't loathe them. On the contrary, they tend to idealize Canada as an unspoilt country, by which they mean that the old stock is less diluted there. Certainly there are no plans to build a wall along the 5000-mile Canadian border, 95 percent of which is unguarded. In fact, even the guarded areas are essentially unguarded, entrants being directed by signs to booths where they can phone-in their passport info when there is actually someone at the other end of the line to take it down.
One would think that those feelings of trust and good-will were reciprocated, that Canadians would look up to their American cousins and cultivate close relations with them, which, insofar as it benefits them, they do. But Canadian politicians and intellectuals also resent and even despise the U.S. for the same reasons that their Mexican counterparts do. These reasons are mainly historical. The U.S. took as many chunks as it could out of Mexico in the 19th century, and tried, also, to cannibalize Canada but with much less success. However, Canada's English settlers were refugees from the American Revolution, colonists loyal to the British who had their property in the 13 Colonies confiscated by the rebels and were forced to flee North for their very lives. In Canadian history, this migration at gunpoint is their "Trail of Tears."
Besides the historical wrongs, real or exaggerated, there is also the fact that Canadians have under-utilized their country and its resources while Americans have exploited theirs to become masters of the earth. Canada is larger by far than the United States but has less than one-tenth its population. That ten percent enjoy a lifestyle comparable to that of the United States and benefit more than Mexico from Canada's proximity to this country. Still, Canadians evidence an even more acute national inferiority complex. Mexicans know who they are: they could hardly be anyone else. Their identity in fact is more fixed than even that of Americans. They do not define their culture or themselves as derivatives of the regional hagemon. But Canadians, because they share a common language with Americans and the same English roots, are not only offshoots of the British but also of their American neighbors. It's easy to forget about Britain and Canadians essentially have. But America is not across an ocean. It is always next door. And Canadians will always be confused with Americans until the day that Americans no longer look like Canadians. Demographers predict that that will be around 2050 when Hispanics are a majority in this country, wall or no wall.
Once you have understood this one-sided rivalry it becomes obvious why "stealing" America's Cuban "colony" became a means for Canadians to affirm their own nationalism. The National Post, in commenting Castro's retirement, acknowledges as much with great introspection and candor. With them it was not only a question of the "enemy of my friend being my friend withal" but of profitting from the alienation of both by contributing to the consolidation of tyranny in Cuba. After nearly 50 years, Canadians at last begin to feel the shame of their hypocrisy and opportunism. This epiphany is too long in coming, but though Canadians cannot undo the harm they have done to innocent Cubans they are still in a position to affect the future positively by declining any longer to be Castro's enablers in this hemisphere.
Recent revelations have shown that Mexico's larcenous presidents over the last 50 years, though officially allied with Castro and his defenders at all international fori, were, many of them, working with the CIA to undermine him, since they not only admired but feared him. There have been no such allegations about Canadian leaders, all of whom, whether Conservative or Liberal, have exploited Cubans without any compunction. Again, it is now the Canadians themselves who are admitting this. Perhaps we will see the day when even The New York Times laments its role in inflicting Castro on the Cuban people. Well, no, that's not going to happen.
The National Post editorial board: Fidel's Sorry Legacy
February 20, 2008
After 49 years of ruling Cuba with an iron fist, 81-year-old Fidel Castro has formally stepped down as president and head of Cuba's armed forces. But there will not be any election to determine his successor. Power in the tropical tyranny is a family matter and Raul Castro, Fidel's 76-year-old brother, will take permanent control of a country he has run for 19 months while Fidel has endured a lengthy illness.
Little has changed during that time — free speech is still suppressed, democracy is crushed, freedom of the press is forbidden, free enterprise is illegal, fair trails are the stuff of dreams, religious freedom is circumscribed, racism against blacks is rampant — and there is no prospect for change in the days to come under brother Raul, who stood by Fidel even after their mother [sister], Lina [Juana], could not and fled Cuba after their 1959 revolution.
Yet the departure of Fidel presents the opportunity for Stephen Harper's Conservative government to rethink Canada's policy toward Cuba, which is both opportunistic and unworthy of a country that pays great heed to human rights.
When Fidel came to Canada in April, 1959, Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker refused to meet him, but he did not refuse to do business with him. When it was clear Fidel was determined to turn Cuba into a communist dictatorship, and that the United States would impose a trade embargo on it, prime minister Diefenbaker beat the Canadian nationalist drum and used the opportunity to win political points at home by playing on anti-American sentiment while generating opportunities for Canadian businesses. This policy helped save the assets of Canadian banks operating in Cuba — the assets of U.S. banks, by contrast, were confiscated — and gave Canadian companies the chance to supply Cuba with goods they could no longer buy from the U.S.
Lester Pearson maintained this policy, while his successor, Pierre Trudeau, lent credibility to Cuba's communists through his personal friendship with Fidel. While Canada was trading with Cuba during the early years of his Fidel's regime, however, roughly 500,000 Cubans — nearly 8% of the total Cuban population — fled the island, more than 77,000 died trying, tens of thousands were unjustly imprisoned and roughly 30,000 were executed by revolutionary firing squads.
Canadian leaders have often defended our Cuba policy saying it constitutes "constructive engagement." Yet little that is constructive has emerged. In 1998, for example, then-prime minister Jean Chretien visited Cuba to make the case for four imprisoned Cuban human rights activists. Mr. Chretien left with a picture of himself with Castro, while the activists continued to languish in jail.
Prime Minister Harper now has the chance to change a historic wrong. No longer should Canada turn a blind eye to the tyranny in Cuba and pretend our policy has been a principled one. Instead, Canadian trade policy should be tied directly to improving human rights and monitoring progress. Moreover, the Canadian government would do the Cuban people a favour by making clear to Canadians that Cuba is, as Theo Caldwell argued in these pages yesterday, an "island prison" — one they should think twice about visiting.
See also:
The Canadian "Herbert Matthews" Returns to Cuba 47 Years Later
Cubamania: How Acquainted Are You with Pure Evil?
One would think that those feelings of trust and good-will were reciprocated, that Canadians would look up to their American cousins and cultivate close relations with them, which, insofar as it benefits them, they do. But Canadian politicians and intellectuals also resent and even despise the U.S. for the same reasons that their Mexican counterparts do. These reasons are mainly historical. The U.S. took as many chunks as it could out of Mexico in the 19th century, and tried, also, to cannibalize Canada but with much less success. However, Canada's English settlers were refugees from the American Revolution, colonists loyal to the British who had their property in the 13 Colonies confiscated by the rebels and were forced to flee North for their very lives. In Canadian history, this migration at gunpoint is their "Trail of Tears."
Besides the historical wrongs, real or exaggerated, there is also the fact that Canadians have under-utilized their country and its resources while Americans have exploited theirs to become masters of the earth. Canada is larger by far than the United States but has less than one-tenth its population. That ten percent enjoy a lifestyle comparable to that of the United States and benefit more than Mexico from Canada's proximity to this country. Still, Canadians evidence an even more acute national inferiority complex. Mexicans know who they are: they could hardly be anyone else. Their identity in fact is more fixed than even that of Americans. They do not define their culture or themselves as derivatives of the regional hagemon. But Canadians, because they share a common language with Americans and the same English roots, are not only offshoots of the British but also of their American neighbors. It's easy to forget about Britain and Canadians essentially have. But America is not across an ocean. It is always next door. And Canadians will always be confused with Americans until the day that Americans no longer look like Canadians. Demographers predict that that will be around 2050 when Hispanics are a majority in this country, wall or no wall.
Once you have understood this one-sided rivalry it becomes obvious why "stealing" America's Cuban "colony" became a means for Canadians to affirm their own nationalism. The National Post, in commenting Castro's retirement, acknowledges as much with great introspection and candor. With them it was not only a question of the "enemy of my friend being my friend withal" but of profitting from the alienation of both by contributing to the consolidation of tyranny in Cuba. After nearly 50 years, Canadians at last begin to feel the shame of their hypocrisy and opportunism. This epiphany is too long in coming, but though Canadians cannot undo the harm they have done to innocent Cubans they are still in a position to affect the future positively by declining any longer to be Castro's enablers in this hemisphere.
Recent revelations have shown that Mexico's larcenous presidents over the last 50 years, though officially allied with Castro and his defenders at all international fori, were, many of them, working with the CIA to undermine him, since they not only admired but feared him. There have been no such allegations about Canadian leaders, all of whom, whether Conservative or Liberal, have exploited Cubans without any compunction. Again, it is now the Canadians themselves who are admitting this. Perhaps we will see the day when even The New York Times laments its role in inflicting Castro on the Cuban people. Well, no, that's not going to happen.
The National Post editorial board: Fidel's Sorry Legacy
February 20, 2008
After 49 years of ruling Cuba with an iron fist, 81-year-old Fidel Castro has formally stepped down as president and head of Cuba's armed forces. But there will not be any election to determine his successor. Power in the tropical tyranny is a family matter and Raul Castro, Fidel's 76-year-old brother, will take permanent control of a country he has run for 19 months while Fidel has endured a lengthy illness.
Little has changed during that time — free speech is still suppressed, democracy is crushed, freedom of the press is forbidden, free enterprise is illegal, fair trails are the stuff of dreams, religious freedom is circumscribed, racism against blacks is rampant — and there is no prospect for change in the days to come under brother Raul, who stood by Fidel even after their mother [sister], Lina [Juana], could not and fled Cuba after their 1959 revolution.
Yet the departure of Fidel presents the opportunity for Stephen Harper's Conservative government to rethink Canada's policy toward Cuba, which is both opportunistic and unworthy of a country that pays great heed to human rights.
When Fidel came to Canada in April, 1959, Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker refused to meet him, but he did not refuse to do business with him. When it was clear Fidel was determined to turn Cuba into a communist dictatorship, and that the United States would impose a trade embargo on it, prime minister Diefenbaker beat the Canadian nationalist drum and used the opportunity to win political points at home by playing on anti-American sentiment while generating opportunities for Canadian businesses. This policy helped save the assets of Canadian banks operating in Cuba — the assets of U.S. banks, by contrast, were confiscated — and gave Canadian companies the chance to supply Cuba with goods they could no longer buy from the U.S.
Lester Pearson maintained this policy, while his successor, Pierre Trudeau, lent credibility to Cuba's communists through his personal friendship with Fidel. While Canada was trading with Cuba during the early years of his Fidel's regime, however, roughly 500,000 Cubans — nearly 8% of the total Cuban population — fled the island, more than 77,000 died trying, tens of thousands were unjustly imprisoned and roughly 30,000 were executed by revolutionary firing squads.
Canadian leaders have often defended our Cuba policy saying it constitutes "constructive engagement." Yet little that is constructive has emerged. In 1998, for example, then-prime minister Jean Chretien visited Cuba to make the case for four imprisoned Cuban human rights activists. Mr. Chretien left with a picture of himself with Castro, while the activists continued to languish in jail.
Prime Minister Harper now has the chance to change a historic wrong. No longer should Canada turn a blind eye to the tyranny in Cuba and pretend our policy has been a principled one. Instead, Canadian trade policy should be tied directly to improving human rights and monitoring progress. Moreover, the Canadian government would do the Cuban people a favour by making clear to Canadians that Cuba is, as Theo Caldwell argued in these pages yesterday, an "island prison" — one they should think twice about visiting.
See also:
The Canadian "Herbert Matthews" Returns to Cuba 47 Years Later
Cubamania: How Acquainted Are You with Pure Evil?
Notable & Exposed: "How Great Was My Fidel!"
"[F]idel Castro is leaving on his own terms, at a time of his choosing. Neither invasion, nor covert operations, nor embargo, nor a steady strengthening of U.S. sanctions since 1992, nor the current Administration’s myriad efforts have forced him from office." — Phil Peters, "Without Fidel," The Cuban Triangle, February 19, 2008
Fidel Castro so hated the Cuban people that he would allow no impediment to stop him from brutalizing them for 49 years. Neither invasion, nor covert operations, nor embargo, nor sanctions, nor George W.'s ten thousand efforts could stop Fidel from fulfilling his destiny of destroying his country to spite the United States. And he "is leaving on his own terms and at a time of his own choosing" with the Grim Reaper scraping the back of his neck with his sickle and his legacy about to tossed on the ashcan of history.
Fidel Castro so hated the Cuban people that he would allow no impediment to stop him from brutalizing them for 49 years. Neither invasion, nor covert operations, nor embargo, nor sanctions, nor George W.'s ten thousand efforts could stop Fidel from fulfilling his destiny of destroying his country to spite the United States. And he "is leaving on his own terms and at a time of his own choosing" with the Grim Reaper scraping the back of his neck with his sickle and his legacy about to tossed on the ashcan of history.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
What If Hitler Had "Retired" Like Fidel
If Hitler had retired as Führer before 1939, what would the reaction of the Western media have been to his decision? Not much different, we suppose, to their reaction to Castro's "retirement" as Cuba's president-for-life. An effort would have been made to create "balance" in a record that overwhelmingly tilted morally and materially to one side: the solution of mass unemployment would be weighed against the material losses of Krystalnacht; the revitalization of Germany's economy would offset the annexation of the Sudetenland; incentives for new mothers would compensate for the sterilization of mental and physical "defectives." And what would balance Hitler's predations on human liberty and humanity iself? The promised Volkswagons? The Autobahn? The 1936 Olympics? Guns? Butter? The German "New Man?"
At least those who tried to exculpate or justify Hitler in the 1930s were not unopposed in their propaganda. There was a formidable press dedicated to denouncing Herr Hitler's crimes as then known. Unfortunately, it was the same press that extolled Stalin's crimes and ceased to condemn Hitler's when the two briefly became allies.
It was, in short, a time of partisan morality, reprehensible, certainly, but not more so than the present era of moral relativism. The media now recoils at condemning tyrants for their crimes as if their own objectivity were judged by their subjectivity to them. When forced to mention those crimes the media characterize them as allegations made by the tyrant's detractors. But their so-called achievements are never identified as the allegations of their apologists.
In Castro's case it is the infant mortality and literacy rates which are the counterweights used in his favor (though Cuba ranked higher in those areas in respect to other countries in 1958 than it does in 2008). There is one thing about Castro that should be highlighted above all else but which is never even mentioned. It is his place as the Western Hemisphere's most notorious mass murderer. Even if all that his supporters allege on his behalf were true, even if the Cuban people had prospered rather than been brought to ruin under his rule, even if human rights and Rule of Law had been respected rather than trampled underfoot every day of the last 49 years, none of it should matter or excuse the fact that Fidel Castro's name was writ large on history's pages with the blood of his countrymen.
On another blog I once demonstrated that Castro had killed more Cubans proportionately than Hitler killed Germans.¶ Many found this comparison objectionable as if to affirm one thing were to deny the other. And yet the facts are what they are. Having ruled four times as long as Hitler, and though he murdered on a smaller canvas, Castro has nonetheless managed to surpass the greatest incarnation of evil that humanity has ever known (there have been greater, of course, Stalin and Mao, for example, but their evil is apparently beyond the comprehension or condemnation of most Westerners).
Only when, as in Hitler's case, it becomes in bad taste even to suggest that there was anything that Castro did for his people that might excuse his bloodlust, then, and only then, will the apologias stop and the mea culpas begin. Obviously, after nearly 50 years, that point has not been reached yet.
The media and the world will get another chance to get it right when Fidel Castro dies.
¶ According to the census of June 1933, the Jewish population of Germany consisted of 505,000 people. Jews represented less than 1 percent of the total German population of 67 million. Approximately 300,000 German Jews managed to escape before the Holocaust. Of the remaining 205,000, 170,000 were killed in the Holocaust. (Source: The Holocaust Encyclopedia).
The Cuban Archive Project has identified and documented 102,000 Cubans killed by Castro (and this number, of course, is always growing).
Hitler killed 170,000 German Jews relative to a total German population of 67 million in 1933 (when he took over). Castro has killed 102,000 Cubans out of a total population of 6.6 million (when he took over in 1959).
Proportionally, Castro has killed 7 times more Cubans than Hitler did German Jews. Even if we relate Castro’s killings to the current Cuban population (11 million), he has still killed 4 times as many Cubans than Hitler killed German Jews.
Moreover, if all the European Jews killed by Hitler (6 million) in all countries to which he extended the Holocaust are taken as a percentage of the total population of Europe, Castro has still killed more Cubans per capita than Hitler killed Jews.
As bad as Hitler? No, worse.
At least those who tried to exculpate or justify Hitler in the 1930s were not unopposed in their propaganda. There was a formidable press dedicated to denouncing Herr Hitler's crimes as then known. Unfortunately, it was the same press that extolled Stalin's crimes and ceased to condemn Hitler's when the two briefly became allies.
It was, in short, a time of partisan morality, reprehensible, certainly, but not more so than the present era of moral relativism. The media now recoils at condemning tyrants for their crimes as if their own objectivity were judged by their subjectivity to them. When forced to mention those crimes the media characterize them as allegations made by the tyrant's detractors. But their so-called achievements are never identified as the allegations of their apologists.
In Castro's case it is the infant mortality and literacy rates which are the counterweights used in his favor (though Cuba ranked higher in those areas in respect to other countries in 1958 than it does in 2008). There is one thing about Castro that should be highlighted above all else but which is never even mentioned. It is his place as the Western Hemisphere's most notorious mass murderer. Even if all that his supporters allege on his behalf were true, even if the Cuban people had prospered rather than been brought to ruin under his rule, even if human rights and Rule of Law had been respected rather than trampled underfoot every day of the last 49 years, none of it should matter or excuse the fact that Fidel Castro's name was writ large on history's pages with the blood of his countrymen.
On another blog I once demonstrated that Castro had killed more Cubans proportionately than Hitler killed Germans.¶ Many found this comparison objectionable as if to affirm one thing were to deny the other. And yet the facts are what they are. Having ruled four times as long as Hitler, and though he murdered on a smaller canvas, Castro has nonetheless managed to surpass the greatest incarnation of evil that humanity has ever known (there have been greater, of course, Stalin and Mao, for example, but their evil is apparently beyond the comprehension or condemnation of most Westerners).
Only when, as in Hitler's case, it becomes in bad taste even to suggest that there was anything that Castro did for his people that might excuse his bloodlust, then, and only then, will the apologias stop and the mea culpas begin. Obviously, after nearly 50 years, that point has not been reached yet.
The media and the world will get another chance to get it right when Fidel Castro dies.
¶ According to the census of June 1933, the Jewish population of Germany consisted of 505,000 people. Jews represented less than 1 percent of the total German population of 67 million. Approximately 300,000 German Jews managed to escape before the Holocaust. Of the remaining 205,000, 170,000 were killed in the Holocaust. (Source: The Holocaust Encyclopedia).
The Cuban Archive Project has identified and documented 102,000 Cubans killed by Castro (and this number, of course, is always growing).
Hitler killed 170,000 German Jews relative to a total German population of 67 million in 1933 (when he took over). Castro has killed 102,000 Cubans out of a total population of 6.6 million (when he took over in 1959).
Proportionally, Castro has killed 7 times more Cubans than Hitler did German Jews. Even if we relate Castro’s killings to the current Cuban population (11 million), he has still killed 4 times as many Cubans than Hitler killed German Jews.
Moreover, if all the European Jews killed by Hitler (6 million) in all countries to which he extended the Holocaust are taken as a percentage of the total population of Europe, Castro has still killed more Cubans per capita than Hitler killed Jews.
As bad as Hitler? No, worse.
Fidel Relinquishes the "Presidency" of Cuba
As we had predicted, Fidel Castro has declined to "aspire" to the presidency which has been awarded unanimously to him since 1976 at the annual meeting of his rubber-stamp "people's assembly." He is going to relinquish that office which he once disdained and made disdainful by bestowing it on the lowest and most docile of his lickspittles; but assumed eventually himself because it would raise him, protocal-wise, at least, to the status of democratically-elected presidents at world summits and guarantee him a 21-gun salute when visiting foreign countries. Such was the practical use of the title "president" to him. Of course, he could have taken any other that title that pleased him from pasha to majarahah; absolute power was always in his hands. How he chose to express it, that is, how he packaged himself, was always his choice. Now he has chosen no longer to represent himself as "president." Whatever he has been since his physical and mental decline, Castro will continue to be. The Communist system embodies him now as much as the rotting carcass in which his fetid soul resides. Nothing has changed for him or Cuba. Nevertheless, he will be praised and congratulated for his decision by friends and enemies alike. Much will be made of Castro's "retirement" by the world media: "the end of an era" and such. Of course, nothing has ended least of all the crucible borne by the Cuban people for nearly 50 years. Not even Castro himself has ended.
I hope sincerely that my countrymen in Miami will not be fooled by this empty gesture and celebrate this event as some kind of opening or hopeful sign. It is not. When a hole is finally dug in the ground for him, celebrate then, although that will not mean the end of Communist tyranny either, at least it will mean the end of the tyrant.
I hope sincerely that my countrymen in Miami will not be fooled by this empty gesture and celebrate this event as some kind of opening or hopeful sign. It is not. When a hole is finally dug in the ground for him, celebrate then, although that will not mean the end of Communist tyranny either, at least it will mean the end of the tyrant.
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Truth About Barack Obama Finally Revealed
As Cuban exiles know better than most, sometimes the truth has to swim clear of its enemies before it can be told. The truth about Barack Obama had to go even farther than we did. 10,000 miles and more, several oceans, all the time zones, to the other side of the world, there only, in New Zealand, could a blogger named Trevor Loudon fit all the pieces of Obama's political history, revealing him to be the creation and creature of organized Marxism in the U.S. Whether calling themselves communist, socialist or progressive (lower case or caps), the only goal they all have in common, besides subverting America's democratic institutions, is the election of Barack Obama. In their publications, circulated among the faithful, they hail Obama as a second Lenin and await hopefully the revolutionary change which they are sure Obama will bring to the country and the world.
This is not for the faint of heart. If knowing what the future could bring will blight the present for you, read it anyway; for it is too late to hide or pretend that something (or someone) is a chimera when everything is already known that can be known and all that remains is to fight the danger or succumb to it.
The series is published in the New Zeal blog in 14 parts so far. Each part is a self-inclusive and vividly written vignette, no endless catalogues of dates and times or arcane references requiring further education. We shall not soon forget Loudon's comparison of the funerals of leading Marxists to those of mafia dons, where the "made men" must attend not just out of respect but to confirm and validate their status. All 14 parts are arranged in descending order:
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/search?q=Obama-file
This is not for the faint of heart. If knowing what the future could bring will blight the present for you, read it anyway; for it is too late to hide or pretend that something (or someone) is a chimera when everything is already known that can be known and all that remains is to fight the danger or succumb to it.
The series is published in the New Zeal blog in 14 parts so far. Each part is a self-inclusive and vividly written vignette, no endless catalogues of dates and times or arcane references requiring further education. We shall not soon forget Loudon's comparison of the funerals of leading Marxists to those of mafia dons, where the "made men" must attend not just out of respect but to confirm and validate their status. All 14 parts are arranged in descending order:
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/search?q=Obama-file
The Babalunians Go on the Vaudeville Circuit
Too bad vaudeville is dead because the Babalunians' parody of the Rodgers and Hammerstein song "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria," from the musical The Sound of Music, is rather good.
One stanza is very weak, however, and we would suggest the following alteration (in boldface):
When she's answering the phone,
Chanting, "Revolución!"
This is maybe not the image that we need.
I'm afraid our "Yes, we can!"
Could be changed to "No, you don't!"
If the nation catches on to our real creed.
Of course, our grammatical emendations and literary suggestions are usually ignored by the Babalunians. However, we note with some satisfaction that they eventually adopt all our other suggestions. For example, George and Henry have finally stopped dumping on McCain and started dumping in earnest on Obama. It finally dawned on them that their parents escaped a Marxist dictatorship to give them a better life and that the least that they could do for them and their children is not to abet a Marxist in his rise to power in this country.
One stanza is very weak, however, and we would suggest the following alteration (in boldface):
When she's answering the phone,
Chanting, "Revolución!"
This is maybe not the image that we need.
I'm afraid our "Yes, we can!"
Could be changed to "No, you don't!"
If the nation catches on to our real creed.
Of course, our grammatical emendations and literary suggestions are usually ignored by the Babalunians. However, we note with some satisfaction that they eventually adopt all our other suggestions. For example, George and Henry have finally stopped dumping on McCain and started dumping in earnest on Obama. It finally dawned on them that their parents escaped a Marxist dictatorship to give them a better life and that the least that they could do for them and their children is not to abet a Marxist in his rise to power in this country.
Next Year's "Presidents Day" May Be Different
Happy amorphous holiday. What exactly does "President's Day" mean?" Is it a day in which we honor all the presidents as we honor all the saints on All Saint's Day? There are a few presidents who don't deserved to be honored. Or is this holiday just to honor Washington and Lincoln? Washington once had a holiday of his own which he didn't have to share with Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln never had his own national holiday though non-Southern states had state holidays to honor him. Now with Presidents Day, Lincoln has at most half a national holiday. The Father of his Country has been compelled to share his day with the Great Emancipator, and, perhaps, every dodo that ever occupied his chair. Next year, God forbid, it may be one of these dodos (actually dummies from Madame Tassaud's). Unless Americans decide that they don't want a joint-presidency (something the Founding Fathers didn't want either) or America's first crypto- Socialist president (something the Founding Fathers could not even have imagined).
Well, if they don't want Hillary-cum-Bill or Comrade Obama as president, I guess they have no choice but to vote for the old "U-G-L-Y" white guy. In fact, come to think of it, Presidents Day could also be called "The Old U-G-L-Y White Guys Day." Someday that label will no longer be appropriate. But just don't let it be on January 20, 2009.
Well, if they don't want Hillary-cum-Bill or Comrade Obama as president, I guess they have no choice but to vote for the old "U-G-L-Y" white guy. In fact, come to think of it, Presidents Day could also be called "The Old U-G-L-Y White Guys Day." Someday that label will no longer be appropriate. But just don't let it be on January 20, 2009.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
"Che" Guevara: The Importance of Being Earnest
In 1959, Ernesto "Che" Guevara oversaw and/or participated in the execution of 15,000 Cubans without due process and in contravention of the Cuban Constitution which abolished the death penalty in 1940. Cuba's population in 1959 was 6 million, which means that Guevara murdered 1 out of every 400 Cubans. 99% of his victims were adult men (though he also executed women and children on ocassion). In respect to just the male population of the island (3 million), Guevara killed 1 out of every 200 Cuban men. And, mark you, that's how many Cubans were killed in the first year of Castroism. There have now been 48 more though none as bloody as that first one.
If Guevara (or, rather, some Guevara clone) were to unleash his Reign of Terror here, killing in exactly the same proportion, it would cost 750,000 Americans their lives.
As a frame of reference, less than 200 individual rebels were killed in the course of the revolution that brought Fidel Castro and "Che" Guevara to power.
Ten-Part Series on "Che" Guevara's Life to Air on PBS Affiliate "V-Me" TV
If Guevara (or, rather, some Guevara clone) were to unleash his Reign of Terror here, killing in exactly the same proportion, it would cost 750,000 Americans their lives.
As a frame of reference, less than 200 individual rebels were killed in the course of the revolution that brought Fidel Castro and "Che" Guevara to power.
Ten-Part Series on "Che" Guevara's Life to Air on PBS Affiliate "V-Me" TV
Saturday, February 16, 2008
"The Economist" Sets Up Academy at Babalú
"Cobbler, stick to your last," I guess.
Henry "Economist" Gómez has gifted the readers of Babalú with his own cobbled together "Econ 101" course. His personal observations are, as always, amusing. Henry is never funnier than when he is trying to be serious. Here he writes that "a lot" of what Ron Paul says about economics has "a kernel of truth in it." Oh, no, Henry, not a kernel but a fullgrown beanstalk. Of course, as Henry, proud possessor of a BA in economics from the University of Florida, reminds us: "Ron Paul is a psysician not an economist." Actually, he's an abortionist, which is a practical Malthusian. Henry himself has recently proven his own deep knowledge of economics with the observation that ad-men make more money than journalists. Although not a Rule of Economics, it does usually hold true. Certainly as long as Henry is paid $25 per article the differential will hold fast as far as he's concerned.
As for his video course in five installments of 5-minutes, well, Universidad del Aire it is not. But in just 25-minutes you can know as much about economics as Henry does. Still, you probably already know more.
Henry "Economist" Gómez has gifted the readers of Babalú with his own cobbled together "Econ 101" course. His personal observations are, as always, amusing. Henry is never funnier than when he is trying to be serious. Here he writes that "a lot" of what Ron Paul says about economics has "a kernel of truth in it." Oh, no, Henry, not a kernel but a fullgrown beanstalk. Of course, as Henry, proud possessor of a BA in economics from the University of Florida, reminds us: "Ron Paul is a psysician not an economist." Actually, he's an abortionist, which is a practical Malthusian. Henry himself has recently proven his own deep knowledge of economics with the observation that ad-men make more money than journalists. Although not a Rule of Economics, it does usually hold true. Certainly as long as Henry is paid $25 per article the differential will hold fast as far as he's concerned.
As for his video course in five installments of 5-minutes, well, Universidad del Aire it is not. But in just 25-minutes you can know as much about economics as Henry does. Still, you probably already know more.
Barack Obama: Jesus Also Had Woolly Hair
"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you." — Barack Obama, "Change We Can Believe In," February 8, 2008
It has been noted that Barack Obama never uses "I" in his speeches but prefers "we" except when he employs "I" to denote the superiority of "we." Likewise, he also uses the inclusive "we" when he means "you." All this sleight of pronouns could be avoided if he simply used "comrades," but, of course, that would be far too obvious.
If we recast these lines from his latest stump speech, substituting the imperial "we's" for "I's" and the inclusive "we's" for "you's," this is what we get:
"I am the one you've been waiting for. I am the change that you seek."
Yes, the Second Coming.
As for the rest:
"This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you."
This line was borrowed from the musical Evita. But, of course, it's as old as the oldest despot. Hitler used it often. So has Fidel. It's an invitation for everybody to dip his hands in the blood. Not just an injunction that "we're all in this together" but a warning that whatever happens no one will be able to escape responsibility for his part in bringing it about. "Serve me now and you will serve me always." Because it's definitely not about "we" or "you" but unquestionably about him. The difference is Barack Obama. He is both the change and the conduit to change. The people are instrumental in effecting that change but incidental once the change is accomplished. Like all Marxist revolutions that are enthroned through democratic means Obama's will represent his personal interests and those of his closest collaborators (which include Fidel, Chávez and Ortega). The people, except as resources for exploitation or beasts of burden, will be immaterial in his plan of government.
It has been noted that Barack Obama never uses "I" in his speeches but prefers "we" except when he employs "I" to denote the superiority of "we." Likewise, he also uses the inclusive "we" when he means "you." All this sleight of pronouns could be avoided if he simply used "comrades," but, of course, that would be far too obvious.
If we recast these lines from his latest stump speech, substituting the imperial "we's" for "I's" and the inclusive "we's" for "you's," this is what we get:
"I am the one you've been waiting for. I am the change that you seek."
Yes, the Second Coming.
As for the rest:
"This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you."
This line was borrowed from the musical Evita. But, of course, it's as old as the oldest despot. Hitler used it often. So has Fidel. It's an invitation for everybody to dip his hands in the blood. Not just an injunction that "we're all in this together" but a warning that whatever happens no one will be able to escape responsibility for his part in bringing it about. "Serve me now and you will serve me always." Because it's definitely not about "we" or "you" but unquestionably about him. The difference is Barack Obama. He is both the change and the conduit to change. The people are instrumental in effecting that change but incidental once the change is accomplished. Like all Marxist revolutions that are enthroned through democratic means Obama's will represent his personal interests and those of his closest collaborators (which include Fidel, Chávez and Ortega). The people, except as resources for exploitation or beasts of burden, will be immaterial in his plan of government.
Obama and ChicagoAnswer
What are Barack Obama's ties to the Chicago-based Marxist revolutionary movement known as ChicagoAnswer?
And who is Mrs. Santa Claus?
I'm working hard on answering those questions.
POSTSCRIPT:
Posada Carriles was incarcerated in El Paso, TX for nearly two years awaiting trial on immigration charges, which were ultimately thrown out by Judge Kathleen Cardone as a legal travesty ("The evidence is overwhelming that the Government improperly manipulated the administration of criminal justice in order to secure a criminal indictment against defendant"). During the time of his "preventive detention" for peligrosidad and immediately after his exoneration there were numerous demonstrations against Posada in Texas organized by Marxist groups such as A-N-S-W-E-R. We do not doubt that the now-notorious "internationalist" María Isabel participated in those protests if she did not herself organize them. Something else to look into.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Claudia Fanelli Joins Babalú's Staff
Claudia Fanelli of Claudia4Libertad is the latest addition to Babalú's staff, which now numbers 17. Except for an unexpected and unbecoming xenophobic streak which she manifested lately, Claudia certainly deserves the praise we lavished on her last year. The vital new blood that Val has funnelled into Babalú's veins over the last year has washed out a lot of the accumulated bad blood and saved it from a certain death by toxicosis. If Val confined himself to blogging about his family (another great post today about his father, btw); George to blogging about Mohammedism (well, he has to blog about something); and Henry to blogging about nothing at all, Babalú might recover some of its past credit and no longer be the Cuban blogosphere's daffy behemoth.
BTW, Claudia, Spain ruled Sicily for 400 years (just as it did Cuba) and the bloods are pretty well mixed. So, do not be so certain that you "contain no Cuban blood," since both Cuban and Sicilian bloodlines have a common wellspring.
POSTSCRIPT:
I have often thought that if I didn't have to dedicate myself to teaching them about Cuban history, politics and everything else, I would be content to instruct the Babalunians on Spanish grammar.
They have bestowed on Claudia the title of "La [sic] Águila." In Spanish, of course, it's "El Águila" and never anything else, at least among literate people.
POSTSCRIPT 2
Claudia has revealed that it was Henry who baptized her "La [sic] Águila." That is so typical of Henry. Not the grammatical error (well, that too) but the shallow thought behind it. Both Charlie Bravo and I assumed that Claudia was given the moniker "La [sic] Águila" in virtue of the fact that she is "lively and perpicacious," which happens to be what águila means when applied to a human being. But no, Henry had something else in mind. Claudia clarifies in a footnote that Henry named her "La [sic] Águila" because she is a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles! Really, has Cuban gallantry died alongside good grammatical usage? Then again, the "American-Cuban" is hardly representative of Cuban anything.
POSTSCRIPT 3:
Henry's antipathy for all things Spanish now includes the Spanish language. He has refused to correct his bastardization of Spanish, and, so, "La [sic] Águila" will continue to perch, ominously, on Babalú's editorial board like the raven in Poe's poem, a fitting testament to one exile's unconquerable hubris, for who except an arrogant ignoramus would lay down new laws for a language without even bothering to learn the standard usage. Henry allows himself that luxury because of his contempt for Spanish. Never, of course, would he take such liberties with his mother tongue.
A man who does not respect the rules of grammar is capable of violating any rules. It is not for naught that I consider Henry a dangerous man.
BTW, Claudia, Spain ruled Sicily for 400 years (just as it did Cuba) and the bloods are pretty well mixed. So, do not be so certain that you "contain no Cuban blood," since both Cuban and Sicilian bloodlines have a common wellspring.
POSTSCRIPT:
I have often thought that if I didn't have to dedicate myself to teaching them about Cuban history, politics and everything else, I would be content to instruct the Babalunians on Spanish grammar.
They have bestowed on Claudia the title of "La [sic] Águila." In Spanish, of course, it's "El Águila" and never anything else, at least among literate people.
POSTSCRIPT 2
Claudia has revealed that it was Henry who baptized her "La [sic] Águila." That is so typical of Henry. Not the grammatical error (well, that too) but the shallow thought behind it. Both Charlie Bravo and I assumed that Claudia was given the moniker "La [sic] Águila" in virtue of the fact that she is "lively and perpicacious," which happens to be what águila means when applied to a human being. But no, Henry had something else in mind. Claudia clarifies in a footnote that Henry named her "La [sic] Águila" because she is a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles! Really, has Cuban gallantry died alongside good grammatical usage? Then again, the "American-Cuban" is hardly representative of Cuban anything.
POSTSCRIPT 3:
Henry's antipathy for all things Spanish now includes the Spanish language. He has refused to correct his bastardization of Spanish, and, so, "La [sic] Águila" will continue to perch, ominously, on Babalú's editorial board like the raven in Poe's poem, a fitting testament to one exile's unconquerable hubris, for who except an arrogant ignoramus would lay down new laws for a language without even bothering to learn the standard usage. Henry allows himself that luxury because of his contempt for Spanish. Never, of course, would he take such liberties with his mother tongue.
A man who does not respect the rules of grammar is capable of violating any rules. It is not for naught that I consider Henry a dangerous man.
Babaloo's Waterloos: Henry Is Now Suggesting that Obama is Reagan's Organic Heir
Henry is now on a first name basis with his idol Obama. He is counting on "Barack" to defeat McCain, not only to be proved right (for once) but because he believes an Obama presidency will usher-in a new Reagan era. No, he's not in favor of unburing the Reagan and sitting him in the Oval Office again (though students of history will recall many medieval precedents). Henry knows that he can't have Arthur again and so will settle for even Mordred so long as he's ideologically pure if foul in word and deed. If you are thinking Newt Gingrich, then you certainly know your Henry.
For now, however, our intrepid advertising man (who could not be lured into journalism even by a handsome $25 honorarium) is concerned with the day to day business of getting Obama elected. This, of course, puts him in a nice pickle. On the one hand he must peddle the Che-Obama story, and even decry the fact that it has not received national coverage, while, on the other hand, he must defend Obama from the charge of being as Socialist (or anything else unsavory) that might obstrude his road to the presidency.
When Claudia4Libertad, who has been at the center of the Che-Obama story, opined on Babalú that Obama's ties to Socialism and his reaction to "Che" Guevara being apostheosized under the aegis of his campaign, led her to question whether "Che" was indeed "one of his idols," Henry replied that he was "giving [Obama] the benefit of the doubt." Which doubt, I wonder? Because there are certainly more than one. Apparently, Henry's faith in Obama is enough to cover all doubts; and, if his faith were to fail him, then his personal attraction to Obama would cover the slack.
By contrast, Henry will not afford McCain "the benefit of the doubt" about anything he has ever said or done in his life. He even refuses to acknowledge that he is a war hero, which even George did. In fact, he called McCain a wimp recently. In Henry's parallel universe Henry is a "hero" and McCain is a "wimp." And Obama, of all people, is "Reaganesque."
Henry has posted a series of links from airheads like himself who contend that Obama is channelling Reagan. How can insubtantiality mimic substance? Reagan never hid what he believed. He was nothing if not frank. Obama is anything but. His hollow rhetoric reduces everything to the most common denominator. It is not that he doesn't have bedrock beliefs, because he does; but, rather, that those beliefs are at variance with those of most Americans and must be concealed. Reagan used his forensic skills to advance his conservative agenda. Obama uses his to conceal his Socialist one.
For now, however, our intrepid advertising man (who could not be lured into journalism even by a handsome $25 honorarium) is concerned with the day to day business of getting Obama elected. This, of course, puts him in a nice pickle. On the one hand he must peddle the Che-Obama story, and even decry the fact that it has not received national coverage, while, on the other hand, he must defend Obama from the charge of being as Socialist (or anything else unsavory) that might obstrude his road to the presidency.
When Claudia4Libertad, who has been at the center of the Che-Obama story, opined on Babalú that Obama's ties to Socialism and his reaction to "Che" Guevara being apostheosized under the aegis of his campaign, led her to question whether "Che" was indeed "one of his idols," Henry replied that he was "giving [Obama] the benefit of the doubt." Which doubt, I wonder? Because there are certainly more than one. Apparently, Henry's faith in Obama is enough to cover all doubts; and, if his faith were to fail him, then his personal attraction to Obama would cover the slack.
By contrast, Henry will not afford McCain "the benefit of the doubt" about anything he has ever said or done in his life. He even refuses to acknowledge that he is a war hero, which even George did. In fact, he called McCain a wimp recently. In Henry's parallel universe Henry is a "hero" and McCain is a "wimp." And Obama, of all people, is "Reaganesque."
Henry has posted a series of links from airheads like himself who contend that Obama is channelling Reagan. How can insubtantiality mimic substance? Reagan never hid what he believed. He was nothing if not frank. Obama is anything but. His hollow rhetoric reduces everything to the most common denominator. It is not that he doesn't have bedrock beliefs, because he does; but, rather, that those beliefs are at variance with those of most Americans and must be concealed. Reagan used his forensic skills to advance his conservative agenda. Obama uses his to conceal his Socialist one.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Fidel & Henry Agree: McCain's Not "Ethical" Enough to Be President
"It seems incredible that in this day and age, the Republican candidate, honored as a hero, should have become an instrument of that [Miami] mafia. No one who has any respect for himself would be guilty of so grave an ethical offense." — Fidel Castro, "Reflections of the Comandante," Granma, February 12, 2008
Which do you prefer? An instrument of the Miami "mafia" or an instrument of Fidel Castro? Never in 49 years has Fidel Castro had more at stake in a U.S. election than he does now. If Obama is elected he might just find the will to live to see the consummation of his life's work. Killing an American president didn't do much for him, destroying another one only turned that president into a lapdog after he left office, and blackmailing a third only succeeded in getting the U.S. to implement the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy.
With Barack Obama, Fidel will finally be in a position to dictate American policy towards Cuba. Not that Obama is himself a mole (that remains to be shown), but he is surrounded by moles, including Greg Craig, Obama's "Czar on Cuba." Craig, of course, is the lawyer who represented the Castro regime in the Elián case and provided his own home as a "safehouse" after Elián's kidnapping at gunpoint. Of course, Fidel Castro has many allies in the media to conceal his co-opting of the Obama campaign. We have seen this in the muted coverage of the Che-Obama affaire.
In view of these facts, any Cuban exile, Cuban-American or "American-Cuban" who supports Obama or dumps on McCain (which is the same thing) is guilty of the crime of lese-patrie, whether his primary allegiance is to Cuba or the U.S.
Which do you prefer? An instrument of the Miami "mafia" or an instrument of Fidel Castro? Never in 49 years has Fidel Castro had more at stake in a U.S. election than he does now. If Obama is elected he might just find the will to live to see the consummation of his life's work. Killing an American president didn't do much for him, destroying another one only turned that president into a lapdog after he left office, and blackmailing a third only succeeded in getting the U.S. to implement the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy.
With Barack Obama, Fidel will finally be in a position to dictate American policy towards Cuba. Not that Obama is himself a mole (that remains to be shown), but he is surrounded by moles, including Greg Craig, Obama's "Czar on Cuba." Craig, of course, is the lawyer who represented the Castro regime in the Elián case and provided his own home as a "safehouse" after Elián's kidnapping at gunpoint. Of course, Fidel Castro has many allies in the media to conceal his co-opting of the Obama campaign. We have seen this in the muted coverage of the Che-Obama affaire.
In view of these facts, any Cuban exile, Cuban-American or "American-Cuban" who supports Obama or dumps on McCain (which is the same thing) is guilty of the crime of lese-patrie, whether his primary allegiance is to Cuba or the U.S.
Barack Obama Gets Daniel Ortega's Endorsement
"It's not to say that there is already a revolution under way in the U.S.; but yes, they [supporters of Barack Obama] are laying the foundations for a revolutionary change... I have faith in God and in the North American people, and above all in the youth, that the moment of great change in the U.S. will come and it will act differently, with justice and equality toward all nations." — Daniel Ortega, Statement broadcast on Sandinista Radio la Primerísima, February 14, 2008
Really, what can one say?
Really, what can one say?
Henry: He Can Pick a Loser, But He Sure Can't Pick a Winner
More sackcloth and ashes for Henry. His #2, Mitt Romney, has just endorsed John McCain for president. His #1, Fred Thompson, endorsed him last week. And the Díaz-Balarts and Ros-Lehtinen at the beginning of his campaign (good move for them).
Somebody please bring Henry a cold compress and an aspirin.
Somebody please bring Henry a cold compress and an aspirin.
Notable and Ominous: Carter Is Going Up One Notch
"The only Hope with Obama is that he will be another Carter and maybe we will have another Reagan afterwards." — rg, "She Can't Catch Us" (comment), Babalú, February 14, 2008
He's right, Obama will make everybody nostalgic for Carter.
There isn't "another Reagan" in sight (nor should we expect one). Besides, no one is going to succeed Obama except through a second American Revolution.
With Obama Americans would be electing their own Hugo Chávez. He's not Fidel because he is going to assume power constitutionally but once in power he will rule like Chávez.
Greek democracy died too.
POSTSCRIPT:
Anonymous said...
I don't see any socialistic qualities to what Obama is proposing. Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, the fathers of capitalism, both agreed that there were certain things the government should do for its citizens, especially if the private sector is unable to do them effectively.
Senator Obama has laid out very specific proposals throughout the last 10 months of how he would accomplish universal healthcare, ending the war in Iraq. I would encourage you to read some of his proposals.
Manuel A. Tellechea said...
Anonymous:
Obama is different. He is an African-American without any black American ancestry. He is an African-American who was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. He is an African-Americans who has always enjoyed the advantages which privileged whites receive as their due. He is an African-American politician who conforms to white America's idea of what a black man should be. In other words, he's his generation's Colin Powell. The fact that he is black is almost imperceptable and certainly incidental. Yet it is enough to overwhelm the fact that he is also the most liberal member of Congress, who would be called a Socialist in any other country but this one. His overblown rhetoric is intended to conceal that fact yet everything else about him betrays it. He is vacuous not because he doesn't have principles but because he does. The only thing that could defeat him is openly espousing those principles. But sometimes a little chink like the Obama-Che affaire pops up to remind us of what he is really about.
He's right, Obama will make everybody nostalgic for Carter.
There isn't "another Reagan" in sight (nor should we expect one). Besides, no one is going to succeed Obama except through a second American Revolution.
With Obama Americans would be electing their own Hugo Chávez. He's not Fidel because he is going to assume power constitutionally but once in power he will rule like Chávez.
Greek democracy died too.
POSTSCRIPT:
Anonymous said...
I don't see any socialistic qualities to what Obama is proposing. Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, the fathers of capitalism, both agreed that there were certain things the government should do for its citizens, especially if the private sector is unable to do them effectively.
Senator Obama has laid out very specific proposals throughout the last 10 months of how he would accomplish universal healthcare, ending the war in Iraq. I would encourage you to read some of his proposals.
Manuel A. Tellechea said...
Anonymous:
Obama is different. He is an African-American without any black American ancestry. He is an African-American who was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. He is an African-Americans who has always enjoyed the advantages which privileged whites receive as their due. He is an African-American politician who conforms to white America's idea of what a black man should be. In other words, he's his generation's Colin Powell. The fact that he is black is almost imperceptable and certainly incidental. Yet it is enough to overwhelm the fact that he is also the most liberal member of Congress, who would be called a Socialist in any other country but this one. His overblown rhetoric is intended to conceal that fact yet everything else about him betrays it. He is vacuous not because he doesn't have principles but because he does. The only thing that could defeat him is openly espousing those principles. But sometimes a little chink like the Obama-Che affaire pops up to remind us of what he is really about.
Henry to McCain: Will You Please Oblige Me and Die
On yesterday's Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour, which, we are happy to report, may soon be put out of its misery, Henry brought up the possibility that John McCain may suffer a "heart attack, become incapacitated, or, God forbid, die." That "God forbid" doesn't sound to us quite sincere, but we'll let God be the judge. It seems to us, however, that if Henry is raising plaints to the Almighty regarding this election he would be wiser to pray for McCain's victory than (God forbid) McCain's death.
Nevertheless, I think that it is finally beginning to dawn on Henry, the political animal whose maturation was stunted at the age of 5, that John McCain, warts and all, is the only bulwark that stands between Barack Obama and the presidency, and that it is the responsibility of all who believe that Socialism and democracy are incompatible, and particularly those who think, as does Henry, that McCain is less than the ideal candidate, to shore him up and not to knock him down, unless their resignation to an Obama presidency is not just defeatism but a betrayal of republican (with a small "r") principles.
The only excuse to be indifferent about the result of this election is if you believe that there is no difference between McCain and Obama. If that is what Henry believes, then let him say so and be done with it. Yet he does not dare to do so because that assertion would say more about him than McCain. In fact, in the wake of the Che-Obama affaire, it would be impossible for Henry and other sunshine patriots to make that assertion unless he wants to become an object of (greater) ridicule and have his own conservative bona fides questioned.
Nevertheless, I think that it is finally beginning to dawn on Henry, the political animal whose maturation was stunted at the age of 5, that John McCain, warts and all, is the only bulwark that stands between Barack Obama and the presidency, and that it is the responsibility of all who believe that Socialism and democracy are incompatible, and particularly those who think, as does Henry, that McCain is less than the ideal candidate, to shore him up and not to knock him down, unless their resignation to an Obama presidency is not just defeatism but a betrayal of republican (with a small "r") principles.
The only excuse to be indifferent about the result of this election is if you believe that there is no difference between McCain and Obama. If that is what Henry believes, then let him say so and be done with it. Yet he does not dare to do so because that assertion would say more about him than McCain. In fact, in the wake of the Che-Obama affaire, it would be impossible for Henry and other sunshine patriots to make that assertion unless he wants to become an object of (greater) ridicule and have his own conservative bona fides questioned.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Babaloo's Waterloos: FLASH! Henry Discovers that Obama's Campaign Is Run By Commies
Henry Gómez has just broken the news that before their recent deletion there were 15 pages extolling "Che" Guevara on Obama's official website. What did Henry expect to find there? More nice pictures of Obama to add to his album? It was not just the Obama precinct captain that put up the Cuban flag with Guevara's superimposed image who has experienced a metamorphosis about the real "Che" Guevara. Henry, too, has seen at long last the truth about Obama. Will it convince him now to stop his campaign in Obama's favor at Babalú, or will the political animal since the age of 5 continue to extoll Obama's "virtues" and "invincibility" while blasting McCain as an inadequate substitute for Reagan? Reagan is dead. He didn't do much for the Cuban people. Let's hope that McCain does better.
Fred Thompson Eats His Bistec Empanizado (and Reagan His Frijoles Negros)
Fred Thompson Eats His Bistec Empanizado (and Reagan His Frijoles Negros)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Notable & Bathetic: Henry Pleads With Obama
"Perhaps a statement from Obama about Che Guevara in which he shatters those myths explicitly and explains how Guevara was not a warrior for social justice but instead a blood thirsty Stalinist who took a nice picture that has been used to dupe fools around the world. I would be glad to publish just such a statement at Babalu and I'm sure many other bloggers would join me." — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Next Up: Fildel/Obama Bumper Stickers," Babalú, February 12, 2008
Translation of Henry's plea to Obama:
"Baby, I still love you. Make me believe again."
Even Val finds this hard to swallow.
Translation of Henry's plea to Obama:
"Baby, I still love you. Make me believe again."
Even Val finds this hard to swallow.
Babaloo's Waterloos: Fanning the Flames of Xenophobia at Refugee Blog
"Tio, [so] 'some Mariel refugees turned to crime because they were envious of what their friends and relatives in the U.S. had achieved during the previous 20 years and the newcomers did not want to wait that long for success or to drive a Cadillac.'
Yeah man, I saw that movie, I think it was called something like "Scareface" or something like that."
Posted by: Abajofidel on February 12, 2008 @ 12:45 AM
It seems almost incredible (not that I would quote fantomas with approval, since even he has his moments); but, rather, that Henry Gómez would resurrect the specter of Mariel to detract attention from his own despicable support for those who continued the persecution of the marielitos on U.S. soil which had begun in Cuba. It was Castro and his propagandists who resurrected the dormant specter of xenophobia in this country by depicting the Mariel refugees as criminals, social misfits and undesirables. It was not only the liberal media that bought into this canard but an indescript college professor named Newt Gingrich, who would use it to forge a career for himself in politics by revitalizing the oldest American political tradition and turning the Republican Party into the new "Know-Nothing" Party. Gingrich's success culminated in the "Contract [on] America" but its effects are still visible today with every Republican presidential candidate (except McCain) vying for the title of "The Biggest Xenophobe."
For the record: The Mariel refugees have replicated the success of earlier waves of Cuban exiles. By all economic and social criteria they are indistinguishable from them. The criminals which Castro infiltrated among them — and who should never have been categorized with them — were long ago deported without due process to Communist Cuba. Doubtless many of these were not in fact criminals as defined by U.S. laws but the victims of Castro's policy of criminalizing all human activity in Cuba. The marielitos identified as "criminals," justly or not, numbered at most 3000 out of a total migration of 135,000. Castro agreed to their return and lost nothing in the bargain since he had used them to turn the entire country against Cuban exiles (no just the marielitos) and succeded in cracking a hole in the Cuban Adjustment Act (1966) which Clinton and George W. would later use to deport not "criminals" but all Cubans who tried to flee Cuba and did not make it to U.S. soil through a gauntlet established to prevent them by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Cuban Coast Guard working in close collaboration.
Readers of Babalú or this blog know of Henry Gómez's support of the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy and his disdain for all "newcomers" from Cuba, whom he would prefer to see rendered in Castro's pressure cooker. Especially fresh in our memories is his complete abandonment of Elenita, the 5-year refugee girl whose craven father wanted to return her to Cuba so that Fidel could have a matched set of abducted children in his trophee case. Henry, who in 2000 had also supported the kidnapping and repatriation of Elián, is nothing if not consistent in his disdain for the hapless denizens of Castro's hell, making no exception even for the youngest ones.
My constant prodding of him on this issue caused Henry recently to declare himself against xenophobia. Still, the candidates which he supported in the Republican primary were the biggest xenophobes in the party. On certain issues, such as more government largesse for the rich and preserving Reagan's legacy, he is an uncompromising ideologue; when it comes to xenophobia, however, he is perfectly willing to ignore Reagan's support for amnesty and line-up with his party's biggest xenophobes. McCain, the only Republican candidate to have supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, who, in fact, put his political career on the line to obtain it for them, Henry despises more than Castro himself and he's turned Babalú into an anti-McCain blog in order to secure the election of Hillary and/or Obama, which he believes will "cleanse" the Republican Party of moderates and restore Newt Gingrich to primacy in the party. No matter, of course, that both Democratic candidates would be disastrous for this country and even more so for Cuba. Henry must prove his point at all costs. Because, of course, it's not about the future of the U.S. or Cuba. It's all about Henry, the political animal since the age of five, avenging himself on those who want to transform the Republican party into something other than a haters' club and hatred is all that Henry has to offer.
Yeah man, I saw that movie, I think it was called something like "Scareface" or something like that."
Posted by: Abajofidel on February 12, 2008 @ 12:45 AM
It seems almost incredible (not that I would quote fantomas with approval, since even he has his moments); but, rather, that Henry Gómez would resurrect the specter of Mariel to detract attention from his own despicable support for those who continued the persecution of the marielitos on U.S. soil which had begun in Cuba. It was Castro and his propagandists who resurrected the dormant specter of xenophobia in this country by depicting the Mariel refugees as criminals, social misfits and undesirables. It was not only the liberal media that bought into this canard but an indescript college professor named Newt Gingrich, who would use it to forge a career for himself in politics by revitalizing the oldest American political tradition and turning the Republican Party into the new "Know-Nothing" Party. Gingrich's success culminated in the "Contract [on] America" but its effects are still visible today with every Republican presidential candidate (except McCain) vying for the title of "The Biggest Xenophobe."
For the record: The Mariel refugees have replicated the success of earlier waves of Cuban exiles. By all economic and social criteria they are indistinguishable from them. The criminals which Castro infiltrated among them — and who should never have been categorized with them — were long ago deported without due process to Communist Cuba. Doubtless many of these were not in fact criminals as defined by U.S. laws but the victims of Castro's policy of criminalizing all human activity in Cuba. The marielitos identified as "criminals," justly or not, numbered at most 3000 out of a total migration of 135,000. Castro agreed to their return and lost nothing in the bargain since he had used them to turn the entire country against Cuban exiles (no just the marielitos) and succeded in cracking a hole in the Cuban Adjustment Act (1966) which Clinton and George W. would later use to deport not "criminals" but all Cubans who tried to flee Cuba and did not make it to U.S. soil through a gauntlet established to prevent them by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Cuban Coast Guard working in close collaboration.
Readers of Babalú or this blog know of Henry Gómez's support of the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy and his disdain for all "newcomers" from Cuba, whom he would prefer to see rendered in Castro's pressure cooker. Especially fresh in our memories is his complete abandonment of Elenita, the 5-year refugee girl whose craven father wanted to return her to Cuba so that Fidel could have a matched set of abducted children in his trophee case. Henry, who in 2000 had also supported the kidnapping and repatriation of Elián, is nothing if not consistent in his disdain for the hapless denizens of Castro's hell, making no exception even for the youngest ones.
My constant prodding of him on this issue caused Henry recently to declare himself against xenophobia. Still, the candidates which he supported in the Republican primary were the biggest xenophobes in the party. On certain issues, such as more government largesse for the rich and preserving Reagan's legacy, he is an uncompromising ideologue; when it comes to xenophobia, however, he is perfectly willing to ignore Reagan's support for amnesty and line-up with his party's biggest xenophobes. McCain, the only Republican candidate to have supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, who, in fact, put his political career on the line to obtain it for them, Henry despises more than Castro himself and he's turned Babalú into an anti-McCain blog in order to secure the election of Hillary and/or Obama, which he believes will "cleanse" the Republican Party of moderates and restore Newt Gingrich to primacy in the party. No matter, of course, that both Democratic candidates would be disastrous for this country and even more so for Cuba. Henry must prove his point at all costs. Because, of course, it's not about the future of the U.S. or Cuba. It's all about Henry, the political animal since the age of five, avenging himself on those who want to transform the Republican party into something other than a haters' club and hatred is all that Henry has to offer.
"Little Gator" Takes a Bite Out of Henry's Ass In Val's House
Yes, but God forbid we should vote for McCain. He just isn't conservative enough. So we'll just have to swallow hard, stay home, and allow Chebama to be elected the next President of the United States of America. That'll teach those moderates.
Posted by: LittleGator at February 11, 2008 08:48 PM
LittleGator,
In case you haven't noticed the Democrats have had about double the turnout than the Republicans in this primary season. Handing old man McCain the nomination does little to inspire anyone to come out. You want me to be excited, give me an exciting candidate not a broken down old liberal in Republican clothing. Got it?
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at February 11, 2008 08:52 PM
Henry,
As with many things in life, one's choice of candidate is to some degree subjective. One guy's "broken down old man — liberal in Republican clothing" is another guy's war hero, POW, castro-hating, straight talking, consistent and unapologetic moderate Republican.
Given a choice between McCain, Huckabee and Romney, I gotta go with McCain. Huckabee is an evangelical wacko. The kind of guy who wants to control your every action and thought. Keep the government out of the corporate board room, but stick the government's nose in your bedroom. Not the kind of "conservative" we want or need. Romney he REALLY fits your "liberal in Republican's clothing" moniker. He is the Republican Kerry. Stick that finger up, and lets see which way the wind is blowing flip/flop/flip/flop/flip/flop.
Now that McCain is sure to be the nominee it is time to put behind the tantrums ("perretas" en español), and support the guy that your fellow Republicans have selected to go up against the Great Satans of the Democratic party. Either that, or continue the unproductive complaining, and let Democrats get an easy win.
Posted by: LittleGator at February 11, 2008 09:37 PM
Sorry LittleGator, it's still a free country. I don't HAVE to do a damned thing.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at February 11, 2008 09:46 PM
Ah, Henry, don't downplay your efforts. You are doing all that a right-wing Cuban blogger could ever be expected to do to get Barack Obama elected president. And, yes, it's still a free country, but it may not be after you get your way.
Posted by: LittleGator at February 11, 2008 08:48 PM
LittleGator,
In case you haven't noticed the Democrats have had about double the turnout than the Republicans in this primary season. Handing old man McCain the nomination does little to inspire anyone to come out. You want me to be excited, give me an exciting candidate not a broken down old liberal in Republican clothing. Got it?
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at February 11, 2008 08:52 PM
Henry,
As with many things in life, one's choice of candidate is to some degree subjective. One guy's "broken down old man — liberal in Republican clothing" is another guy's war hero, POW, castro-hating, straight talking, consistent and unapologetic moderate Republican.
Given a choice between McCain, Huckabee and Romney, I gotta go with McCain. Huckabee is an evangelical wacko. The kind of guy who wants to control your every action and thought. Keep the government out of the corporate board room, but stick the government's nose in your bedroom. Not the kind of "conservative" we want or need. Romney he REALLY fits your "liberal in Republican's clothing" moniker. He is the Republican Kerry. Stick that finger up, and lets see which way the wind is blowing flip/flop/flip/flop/flip/flop.
Now that McCain is sure to be the nominee it is time to put behind the tantrums ("perretas" en español), and support the guy that your fellow Republicans have selected to go up against the Great Satans of the Democratic party. Either that, or continue the unproductive complaining, and let Democrats get an easy win.
Posted by: LittleGator at February 11, 2008 09:37 PM
Sorry LittleGator, it's still a free country. I don't HAVE to do a damned thing.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at February 11, 2008 09:46 PM
Ah, Henry, don't downplay your efforts. You are doing all that a right-wing Cuban blogger could ever be expected to do to get Barack Obama elected president. And, yes, it's still a free country, but it may not be after you get your way.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Che-Obama Connection (Courtesy of Killcastro)
I'll bet this is one item of "Che" merchandise (on display at Obama's Houston office) that will never be featured, much less condemned, at Babalú. Or should that be "O'Bamalú?"
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/2008/02/source-of-this-picture-is.html
POSTSCRIPT:
Contrary to our expectations, Babalú has used the picture (without credit to Killcasto) and it was none other than its top Obama booster Henry "Economist" Gómez who posted it, proving, yet again, that his face is one of the hardest substances that Cuba has ever produced, though I think that having been born and raised in this country may also have contributed to making it impermeable to any sense of decency or honor.
The great mountebank has been throwing roses at Obama for weeks. He bought the roses for their thorns, with which he regularly excoriates McCain; but being a frugal type, he did not let the flowers go to waste, but showered them on Obama in spasms of unrestrained admiration for his looks, charisma, forensic skills, and God knows what other endowments.
It cannot come as a surprise to Henry that the man he so idolizes from the opposite(?) camp is a shill for Fidel Castro. Obama at least has the merit of making no secret of his own infatuation with Castro. He has publicly announced that he would meet with Fidel Castro at the first opportunity and conduct negotiations without prior conditions. Castro's henchmen could be torturing Oscar Biscet in the next room, and President Obama would have ears only for Castro's prevarications. His chief adviser on Cuba is none other than the loathesome Greg Craig, Castro's lawyer and Elián's warden, who deserted the Clintons because he did not regard them as sufficiently amicable to Castro, in order to lead Obama down the road of capitulation to the Castro regime.
Even as Henry avers that Obama will be the Democratic nominee in November, he continues to attack McCain, who has been an enemy of the Castro regime longer than Obama has lived. Henry has made no secret that he wants McCain to lose and the Democrats to win as a "lesson" to Republicans who are not as conservative as he wants them to be. So much for democracy: the Republicans are not free to nominate the candidate that they choose; it must be Henry's choice or it must be preëmpted. To say that this is poor sportsmanship is the least that can be said of it. Even the label of political spoiler doesn't do him justice. To us it betrays infinite contempt for civil society bordering on anarchism. Henry is free to destroy his country, as the good "American-Cuban" that he is, though we shall be sorry for it; but when implicit in that destruction is also the coup de grace for Cuba, we must object and will continue to object up until election day if Henry's fixation runs its full course, as we expect it will.
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/2008/02/source-of-this-picture-is.html
POSTSCRIPT:
Contrary to our expectations, Babalú has used the picture (without credit to Killcasto) and it was none other than its top Obama booster Henry "Economist" Gómez who posted it, proving, yet again, that his face is one of the hardest substances that Cuba has ever produced, though I think that having been born and raised in this country may also have contributed to making it impermeable to any sense of decency or honor.
The great mountebank has been throwing roses at Obama for weeks. He bought the roses for their thorns, with which he regularly excoriates McCain; but being a frugal type, he did not let the flowers go to waste, but showered them on Obama in spasms of unrestrained admiration for his looks, charisma, forensic skills, and God knows what other endowments.
It cannot come as a surprise to Henry that the man he so idolizes from the opposite(?) camp is a shill for Fidel Castro. Obama at least has the merit of making no secret of his own infatuation with Castro. He has publicly announced that he would meet with Fidel Castro at the first opportunity and conduct negotiations without prior conditions. Castro's henchmen could be torturing Oscar Biscet in the next room, and President Obama would have ears only for Castro's prevarications. His chief adviser on Cuba is none other than the loathesome Greg Craig, Castro's lawyer and Elián's warden, who deserted the Clintons because he did not regard them as sufficiently amicable to Castro, in order to lead Obama down the road of capitulation to the Castro regime.
Even as Henry avers that Obama will be the Democratic nominee in November, he continues to attack McCain, who has been an enemy of the Castro regime longer than Obama has lived. Henry has made no secret that he wants McCain to lose and the Democrats to win as a "lesson" to Republicans who are not as conservative as he wants them to be. So much for democracy: the Republicans are not free to nominate the candidate that they choose; it must be Henry's choice or it must be preëmpted. To say that this is poor sportsmanship is the least that can be said of it. Even the label of political spoiler doesn't do him justice. To us it betrays infinite contempt for civil society bordering on anarchism. Henry is free to destroy his country, as the good "American-Cuban" that he is, though we shall be sorry for it; but when implicit in that destruction is also the coup de grace for Cuba, we must object and will continue to object up until election day if Henry's fixation runs its full course, as we expect it will.
Notable & Vindictive: Ain't Gonna Happen, Vulture
"So the irony is that Romney withdrew to clear a path for McCain, who had been on great terms with the Huckabee camp and now Huckabee has become the messenger delivering the message about how much Republicans hate McCain. Good. That's what McCain gets for playing the two-man game against Fred and then Romney. Screw him." — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "The Irony of Romney's Withdrawal," Cuban-American Pundits, February 11, 2008
Now McCain is a public sinner because he knows how to play politics while Thompson and Romney do not. Of course, the only thing McCain could do to please Henry is to lie down and let the vultures eviscerate him. Ain't gonna happen, vulture.
Now McCain is a public sinner because he knows how to play politics while Thompson and Romney do not. Of course, the only thing McCain could do to please Henry is to lie down and let the vultures eviscerate him. Ain't gonna happen, vulture.
Babaloo's New Oath of Allegiance
"I'm no McCain fan, and I will not vote [for] him. Even if that means allowing a Democrat to be elected." — Ventanita, "No Cubans Torturing In Hanoi," Babalú, February 10, 2008
Glad to Be Able to Keep a Promise to George
We promised in a previous thread to find something of George Moneo's to praise. We had despaired that perhaps we had made a promise we would not in good faith be able to keep. But, happily, George this morning did say something wise and funny that we could endorse.
Val asked the question: "Why would someone "change her name to 'Medea,' a woman who, in the Euripedes' tragedy, takes the sword to her two sons to spite her husband?"
George offers this answer:
"Val, it's perfectly understandable. She's a communist and a feminist. Both are philosophies of hate and envy. One for wealth, the other for penises."
Now that is good.
The rest of his comment is overkill and you can read it over at Babalú.
Val asked the question: "Why would someone "change her name to 'Medea,' a woman who, in the Euripedes' tragedy, takes the sword to her two sons to spite her husband?"
George offers this answer:
"Val, it's perfectly understandable. She's a communist and a feminist. Both are philosophies of hate and envy. One for wealth, the other for penises."
Now that is good.
The rest of his comment is overkill and you can read it over at Babalú.
"ConeheadCon" Strikes Again
I cannot even say that we are witnessing the unravelling of a fine mind, for his anti-McCain campaign of the last few weeks at Babalú has revealed his mind to be turgid, derivative and fanatical, and I now feel as much contempt for it as Henry himself once did for the mental processes of Ron Paul's followers. In reaction to his recent posts I am tempted to write, almost every time, that he has reached a new low, because he does continually. When a man checks his sense of shame at the door, there is nothing so despicable that he won't consider. Because I know that he will, somehow, top himself, I have refrained from labelling his latest post his worst or most offensive.
In this his latest disgrace Henry features photos of three of the failed Republican candidates and McCain, who has it in his power should he so choose to rescue any of them from irrelevancy by picking one as his running mate. Borrowing a trick from his old friend Rick (formerly of SotP) he has chosen the least flattering picture he could find of the war hero but used the official campaign portraits of the draft dodgers (for that's another way to distinguish between McCain and the rest of the field). He has labelled Huckabee "So(uth)Con," Thompson "Fis(cal)Con," "Guiliani "Def(ense)Con" and McCain "NonCon." How witty is our Henry! Just what we might expect from a political animal since the age of 5. In fact, I think a 5-year old might have done as well. I suppose that Henry thinks he's being cute or making some kind of point. I just hope that it means he has used-up all the borrowed arguments in his carpetbag and is reduced now to simplistic sloganeering (the kind of thing he does for a living).
What would Henry call Obama and Hillary? Nothing nasty, of course, since they are now allies in the war against McCain. How about "LipstickLib" and "ButchLib?"
As for Henry, we would suggest "ConeheadCon."
In this his latest disgrace Henry features photos of three of the failed Republican candidates and McCain, who has it in his power should he so choose to rescue any of them from irrelevancy by picking one as his running mate. Borrowing a trick from his old friend Rick (formerly of SotP) he has chosen the least flattering picture he could find of the war hero but used the official campaign portraits of the draft dodgers (for that's another way to distinguish between McCain and the rest of the field). He has labelled Huckabee "So(uth)Con," Thompson "Fis(cal)Con," "Guiliani "Def(ense)Con" and McCain "NonCon." How witty is our Henry! Just what we might expect from a political animal since the age of 5. In fact, I think a 5-year old might have done as well. I suppose that Henry thinks he's being cute or making some kind of point. I just hope that it means he has used-up all the borrowed arguments in his carpetbag and is reduced now to simplistic sloganeering (the kind of thing he does for a living).
What would Henry call Obama and Hillary? Nothing nasty, of course, since they are now allies in the war against McCain. How about "LipstickLib" and "ButchLib?"
As for Henry, we would suggest "ConeheadCon."
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Notable & Hard to Swallow: McCain Is Leading
"The first thing you'll notice of course is that McCain is currently polling ahead of both potential opponents. That's good news for him I suppose." — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Tracking Electability," Babalú, February 10, 2008
Yes, one would suppose, wouldn't one?
Unless one were Henry Gómez.
Good news for McCain and the Republicans is bad news for him.
Yes, one would suppose, wouldn't one?
Unless one were Henry Gómez.
Good news for McCain and the Republicans is bad news for him.
Notable & Predictable: Henry Praises Ron Paul
"Paul says we need to get back to the ideas of the founding fathers and I agree but If France had subscribed to the isolationist philosophy that Ron Paul espouses, back in the 1770s, we'd all be singing 'God Save the Queen.' Something to consider" — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Obama Will Win the Democrat Nomination," Babalú, February 9, 2008
I predicted that Henry Gómez would end up supporting Ron Paul and now he likens Paul's ideas to those of the Founding Fathers, with some reservations about isolationism (which was George Washington's creed, remember, "no entangling alliances?"). Sometimes, I ask myself, why do I bother? I can read him like a book and the book is of absolutely no value. Still, so long as Babalú is perceived in many circles to represent the views of most Cuban exiles, it must be fought at all costs even if it requires me to parse the writings of a political ingénue with an imperfect knowledge of history. It should be noted that Spain — which Henry hates — was also crucial in securing America's independence. Not only did Cubans, then Spanish subjects, fight at Yorktown alongside the French and Americans but their female relatives underwrote the costs of the Yorktown campaign, which resulted in the surrender of the British and the realization of American independence. And for this neither Spain nor France — and much less the Cubans — demanded a naval base on Chesapeake Bay.
I predicted that Henry Gómez would end up supporting Ron Paul and now he likens Paul's ideas to those of the Founding Fathers, with some reservations about isolationism (which was George Washington's creed, remember, "no entangling alliances?"). Sometimes, I ask myself, why do I bother? I can read him like a book and the book is of absolutely no value. Still, so long as Babalú is perceived in many circles to represent the views of most Cuban exiles, it must be fought at all costs even if it requires me to parse the writings of a political ingénue with an imperfect knowledge of history. It should be noted that Spain — which Henry hates — was also crucial in securing America's independence. Not only did Cubans, then Spanish subjects, fight at Yorktown alongside the French and Americans but their female relatives underwrote the costs of the Yorktown campaign, which resulted in the surrender of the British and the realization of American independence. And for this neither Spain nor France — and much less the Cubans — demanded a naval base on Chesapeake Bay.
Still Obsessed With Obama's Youth and Repulsed by "U-G-L-Y" McCain
Henry, the political prognosticator who never fails to be wrong, is now predicting that "Obama will win the Democrat nomination." What he formerly thought "inevitable, the nomination of Hillary Clinton by the Democrats, now seems unlikely." In other words, Henry is wrong now in order to be right later. Having already been wrong twice about who would win the Republican presidential nomination, he now stands the chance of being wrong a second time about the Democratic nominee as well. How a pundit who has been wrong so consistently about everything can continue to opine on a subject about which he has already proven himself to be wholly ignorant is the real triumph of hope over experience. No "expert" on any subject, not even a self-proclaimed one or erstwhile prodigy of 5, having been completely wrong time and time again and thoroughly discredited, would continue to burden the patience of his readers unless becoming a public joke were his goal.
Henry's infatuation with Obama is not news. We have commented on it several times here. In English public schools it's known as a "crush," part hero-worship and part eroticized attraction. Someone thus infatuated is known there as a "fag" — that's how the word entered the common parlance, though the "crush" need not be sexual in practice (though it often is).
Henry seems obsessed with Obama's youth, or, rather, his youthful appearance (he's ten years older than Henry) and believes that it will suffice to defeat McCain because he is old and "U-G-L-Y." He is not the only one of this opinion. In a new low even for him, Fantomas, Henry's new nemesis, attributes McCain's "ugliness" to his "war wounds." (The beatings which McCain sustained at the hands of Cuban torturers at the Hanoi Hilton left his face slightly asymmetrical and prevent him from raising his arms above his chest). Contemptible as is fantomas for even saying this, he is less contemptible than Henry who merely implies it and is too smart or craven to avow what he really means. I hope we still live in an America where wounds or disfigurements sustained in her defense are still regarded as badges of honor and not bar sinisters. It would signal the utter debasement of this country if its obsession with youth and physical beauty were carried to such an extreme that it would trump honor, courage and sacrifice.
If you are a woman or a gay guy — a shallow woman or shallow gay guy — maybe the contest will be decided along those lines. However, I do not think that Henry's Theory that the youngest and most attractive candidate (or anyway the least U-G-L-Y or disfigured) always wins will hold for the generation population.
Henry is also trumpetting Obama's oratorical skills in addition to his physical attractions. Since his words are hollow and non-committal on most subjects, as, indeed, has been his entire political career, it is his appearance and style of delivery, then, that captivates Henry: the image not the substance. So, then, we are back to square one — Henry likes the cut of Obama's gib.
Henry's infatuation with Obama is not news. We have commented on it several times here. In English public schools it's known as a "crush," part hero-worship and part eroticized attraction. Someone thus infatuated is known there as a "fag" — that's how the word entered the common parlance, though the "crush" need not be sexual in practice (though it often is).
Henry seems obsessed with Obama's youth, or, rather, his youthful appearance (he's ten years older than Henry) and believes that it will suffice to defeat McCain because he is old and "U-G-L-Y." He is not the only one of this opinion. In a new low even for him, Fantomas, Henry's new nemesis, attributes McCain's "ugliness" to his "war wounds." (The beatings which McCain sustained at the hands of Cuban torturers at the Hanoi Hilton left his face slightly asymmetrical and prevent him from raising his arms above his chest). Contemptible as is fantomas for even saying this, he is less contemptible than Henry who merely implies it and is too smart or craven to avow what he really means. I hope we still live in an America where wounds or disfigurements sustained in her defense are still regarded as badges of honor and not bar sinisters. It would signal the utter debasement of this country if its obsession with youth and physical beauty were carried to such an extreme that it would trump honor, courage and sacrifice.
If you are a woman or a gay guy — a shallow woman or shallow gay guy — maybe the contest will be decided along those lines. However, I do not think that Henry's Theory that the youngest and most attractive candidate (or anyway the least U-G-L-Y or disfigured) always wins will hold for the generation population.
Henry is also trumpetting Obama's oratorical skills in addition to his physical attractions. Since his words are hollow and non-committal on most subjects, as, indeed, has been his entire political career, it is his appearance and style of delivery, then, that captivates Henry: the image not the substance. So, then, we are back to square one — Henry likes the cut of Obama's gib.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Fred Thompson Endorses John McCain
I've said it here several times already: Fred Thompson will endorse John McCain and he has today. This does not make me a soothsayer because it is only to be expected that a loyal Republican would endorse his party's candidate for president. It would have been news if he had declined to do so, but I doubt that any prominent Republicans will. This leaves only unreconstructed Southerners and toothless ideologues like George and Henry to oppose him with (or without) the party.
I would urge Henry and George not be crestfallen by this news but to embrace it as the lifeline which it is for them. There would be no chance that McCain would pick Thompson as his running-mate unless he endorsed him while his endorsement could still do him some good. So now Thompson is in the running for vice-president and his chances are much better of being on the national ticket than at any other time in the campaign. Thompson has proven that he is a good soldier and that's all that a vice-president needs to be. Although Thompson's characterization of balseros as "suitcase bombers" still irks me as does McCain's support for the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy, I, unlike George and Henry, do not believe that I have been entrusted by divine warrant to pick the Republican ticket, and I could offer the ticket of McCain-Thompson my full support not for its merits alone but because of the great danger posed to the future of this country and Cuba by the Clintons and/or Obama.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/mac_says_thomps.html
I would urge Henry and George not be crestfallen by this news but to embrace it as the lifeline which it is for them. There would be no chance that McCain would pick Thompson as his running-mate unless he endorsed him while his endorsement could still do him some good. So now Thompson is in the running for vice-president and his chances are much better of being on the national ticket than at any other time in the campaign. Thompson has proven that he is a good soldier and that's all that a vice-president needs to be. Although Thompson's characterization of balseros as "suitcase bombers" still irks me as does McCain's support for the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy, I, unlike George and Henry, do not believe that I have been entrusted by divine warrant to pick the Republican ticket, and I could offer the ticket of McCain-Thompson my full support not for its merits alone but because of the great danger posed to the future of this country and Cuba by the Clintons and/or Obama.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/mac_says_thomps.html
Cuba Art: How the Revolution Broke It In and Harnessed It
It's called "Deconstruction" and it really is a choice specimen of it. RSNLK is even better at it than Henry used to be before the prospect of a McCain presidency unhinged his febrile mind and turned him into Robespierre. In a few well-crafted sentences dripping with purest satire, RSNLK dissects with laser-like precision the turgid agitprop of the art critic of the august Barre Montpelier Argus Times. Jim Lowe, who is obviously destined for bigger and better things — because, of course, from the Argus Times one may hope to rise but need never fear descending lower — reviews with all the pretentiousness he can summon and whatever notes he took at college, in "¡Viva la Revolución!," 101, 201 and 301, "¡Cuba: Art and History from 1868 to Today," an exhibit at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts.
This is the first art exhibit, in my recollection, which combines art with history; not history as an aid in placing the paintings in their historical context, but "History" as a co-equal motif which validates the art and ultimately subordinates it to its own purposes. Of course, "history" is used as a euphemism here; it is not "history" that the Cuban and Canadian curators mean, but, rather, history as propaganda. The paintings, arranged as they are into five historical periods, are intended to show not only artistic but political evolution, and fail miserably in that respect, of course, because although there has been evolution it has been in the other direction. The apex of Cuban art was precisely in the last two decades of the Republic (1938-1958), which coincides, also, with the most progressive and prosperous period in Cuban history. This is no less true for Cuban literature than for Cuban art or music. Indeed, it would be impossible to point to any field of creative human endeavour which was not affected negatively by the Cuban Revolution.
Why 1868 as the beginning of Cuban art? Cuban art was not born with the Ten Years' War (1868-78) for Cuban Independence. Revolutions do affect art, sometimes for the better (1868) and sometimes for the worse (1959). They can carry in their wake the seeds of a national art, as was the case with the French Revolution (the only good thing it produced); or, as in the case of Naziism and Bolshevism, revolutions can hinder and eventually stop the evolution of national art or replace it with national kitsch, as in Cuba.
There is a tendentious but easily transparent theme that runs through this entire exhibition. It is to depict pre-revolutionary Cuba as a squalid and dangerous place. It achieves this effect by relying on social realism, which always prefers the squalid over the beautiful and the ignoble over the noble, at least when depicting capitalist societies. It performs the reverse service when portraying the "glories" of Communism. It is that very duality which betrays its agenda and renders its social commentary worthless. An exhibit on U.S. history which relied principally on works of social realism to depict the evolution of American democracy would foreshadow the destruction of not only capitalism but the Republic itself. Cuba was destroyed but by the heroes of social realism, whose fanciful depictions of a hellish pre-Castro Cuba are now used to justify that destruction.
Eskil Lam, son of Wilfredo Lam, esteemed by many to be Cuba's greatest painter, refused to contribute any of his father's works in his possession to this exhibit, and, in an interview in The New York Times, even implied that his father would not have approved of the later stages of the Cuban Revolution because he was a "humanist" (but not enough of one to have ever denounced it). Wilfredo Lam was of Chinese-African heritage, studied to be a lawyer but opted to become a painter instead. Pre-revolutionary Cuban society, which was more colorblind than any that ever existed in the Western Hemisphere and the opposite in that respect to Castro's racially-polarized revolutionary "paradise," produced Lams, Carpentiers, Whites and even Batistas (for politics is an art, too) with such naturalness and regularity that no one ever thought to hold them up as "tokens" because they were the mainstream. In contrast, in nearly 50 years, the Castro regime has produced no writer or artist of note except those it "trained" in prisons and concentration camps.
***
Also read the comments by Ray and Alberto Cruz:
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/007342.html
This is the first art exhibit, in my recollection, which combines art with history; not history as an aid in placing the paintings in their historical context, but "History" as a co-equal motif which validates the art and ultimately subordinates it to its own purposes. Of course, "history" is used as a euphemism here; it is not "history" that the Cuban and Canadian curators mean, but, rather, history as propaganda. The paintings, arranged as they are into five historical periods, are intended to show not only artistic but political evolution, and fail miserably in that respect, of course, because although there has been evolution it has been in the other direction. The apex of Cuban art was precisely in the last two decades of the Republic (1938-1958), which coincides, also, with the most progressive and prosperous period in Cuban history. This is no less true for Cuban literature than for Cuban art or music. Indeed, it would be impossible to point to any field of creative human endeavour which was not affected negatively by the Cuban Revolution.
Why 1868 as the beginning of Cuban art? Cuban art was not born with the Ten Years' War (1868-78) for Cuban Independence. Revolutions do affect art, sometimes for the better (1868) and sometimes for the worse (1959). They can carry in their wake the seeds of a national art, as was the case with the French Revolution (the only good thing it produced); or, as in the case of Naziism and Bolshevism, revolutions can hinder and eventually stop the evolution of national art or replace it with national kitsch, as in Cuba.
There is a tendentious but easily transparent theme that runs through this entire exhibition. It is to depict pre-revolutionary Cuba as a squalid and dangerous place. It achieves this effect by relying on social realism, which always prefers the squalid over the beautiful and the ignoble over the noble, at least when depicting capitalist societies. It performs the reverse service when portraying the "glories" of Communism. It is that very duality which betrays its agenda and renders its social commentary worthless. An exhibit on U.S. history which relied principally on works of social realism to depict the evolution of American democracy would foreshadow the destruction of not only capitalism but the Republic itself. Cuba was destroyed but by the heroes of social realism, whose fanciful depictions of a hellish pre-Castro Cuba are now used to justify that destruction.
Eskil Lam, son of Wilfredo Lam, esteemed by many to be Cuba's greatest painter, refused to contribute any of his father's works in his possession to this exhibit, and, in an interview in The New York Times, even implied that his father would not have approved of the later stages of the Cuban Revolution because he was a "humanist" (but not enough of one to have ever denounced it). Wilfredo Lam was of Chinese-African heritage, studied to be a lawyer but opted to become a painter instead. Pre-revolutionary Cuban society, which was more colorblind than any that ever existed in the Western Hemisphere and the opposite in that respect to Castro's racially-polarized revolutionary "paradise," produced Lams, Carpentiers, Whites and even Batistas (for politics is an art, too) with such naturalness and regularity that no one ever thought to hold them up as "tokens" because they were the mainstream. In contrast, in nearly 50 years, the Castro regime has produced no writer or artist of note except those it "trained" in prisons and concentration camps.
Also read the comments by Ray and Alberto Cruz:
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/007342.html
Friday, February 8, 2008
Does McCain Excite You?
"I am very doubtful that McCain can excite anyone." — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Russert Hits the Nail on the head," Cuban-American Pundits, February 8, 2008
He sure can excite you, though.
For those who may be interested, Henry has moved the Anti-McCain Show from Babalú to his own modest blog, Cuban-American Pundits.
He sure can excite you, though.
For those who may be interested, Henry has moved the Anti-McCain Show from Babalú to his own modest blog, Cuban-American Pundits.
And Val said "Stop!" And They Stopped
Surely this cannot be possible — an entire day without even one post from George or Henry about the election; no prognostications of impending doom; no re-hashing of canards against McCain; no lamentations about his running mate if the "Huckster" or exultations if Fred Thompson; no roses thrown at Obama because of his supposed physical attractions; no "Hillary is invincible so why don't we just bend over for 4 years and get it over with." No, none of that today.
Val finally asserted himself and put an end to these proceedings which had turned the echo chamber into a house of horrors with all its customary cacophony. Civility, which has never been Babalú's strong point, was suffering the death of a thousand cuts this week. It seemed like everybody was just one comment away from insulting the other's mother. For once, these petite tyrants were not browbeating dissenters with impunity because everybody was a dissenter in one degree or another. They had only one choice — shut down the blog or take their medicine. They did not take it with good grace but they took it. Then Val, who stands to lose the most by Babalú's self-implosion, cried, "Stop!" And they did. But not before they had wasted the very last drop of credibility which Babalú had left, which, at the end, was being measured in drams.
Val & Company seemed to have forgotten that they, too, have a base and can't afford to alienate it any more than can John McCain — a useful lesson which they should take to heart when they enter the voting booth in November and cast their votes for McCain.
Val finally asserted himself and put an end to these proceedings which had turned the echo chamber into a house of horrors with all its customary cacophony. Civility, which has never been Babalú's strong point, was suffering the death of a thousand cuts this week. It seemed like everybody was just one comment away from insulting the other's mother. For once, these petite tyrants were not browbeating dissenters with impunity because everybody was a dissenter in one degree or another. They had only one choice — shut down the blog or take their medicine. They did not take it with good grace but they took it. Then Val, who stands to lose the most by Babalú's self-implosion, cried, "Stop!" And they did. But not before they had wasted the very last drop of credibility which Babalú had left, which, at the end, was being measured in drams.
Val & Company seemed to have forgotten that they, too, have a base and can't afford to alienate it any more than can John McCain — a useful lesson which they should take to heart when they enter the voting booth in November and cast their votes for McCain.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Mitt Romney: Gone Like His Father and Hopefully Never to Return
Babalú has just posted a You Tube video of Mitt Romney with the caption: "Take a Last Look."
That was the trouble. Nobody took a first look. They were that smart.
The Babalunian triad, however, was not. They were conned by this particular poseur and xenophobe endorsed by Tom Tancredo and afterwards by Henry and George.
The GOP had a miraculous deliverance from him and his money.
Let us also have a last look at Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney's Ten Biggest Gaffes
Guess Which Presidential Candidate Was a Mexican Anchor Baby?
The Continuing Saga of Mitt Romney, Mexican Anchor Baby
Mitt Romney: The Buck Stops With the Landscaper
That was the trouble. Nobody took a first look. They were that smart.
The Babalunian triad, however, was not. They were conned by this particular poseur and xenophobe endorsed by Tom Tancredo and afterwards by Henry and George.
The GOP had a miraculous deliverance from him and his money.
Let us also have a last look at Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney's Ten Biggest Gaffes
Guess Which Presidential Candidate Was a Mexican Anchor Baby?
The Continuing Saga of Mitt Romney, Mexican Anchor Baby
Mitt Romney: The Buck Stops With the Landscaper
Notable & Lonely: Babalú's Voice of Reason
"Maybe we'll get lucky, maybe if McCain gets elected and castro inc. pisses him off he'll do something. I think he's a hot head who takes things personally, and there is the torture memory at the hands of Cuban agents he carries around. Hey, I'm just trying to be optimistic." — Ziva, "White House News," Babalú, February 7, 2008
When somebody loves someone he wants that someone to prosper. He does not admit pessimistic thoughts about its future. Its future to him is always bright whatever its present circumstances. Those who truly love may be overcautious but they will never be pessimistic. Only those who have lost hope in the object of their affection will ever frame its future in blackest hues.
So, yes, Ziva go ahead and be opmitistic. Nothing is gained by being pessimistic even if in the end our hopes at not realized. But I think that you are right and they are wrong: John McCain will be an active agent in the liberation of Cuba. His temperament would not allow him to be otherwise, and scores are not only settled in movies. It sometimes happens in real life, too.
When somebody loves someone he wants that someone to prosper. He does not admit pessimistic thoughts about its future. Its future to him is always bright whatever its present circumstances. Those who truly love may be overcautious but they will never be pessimistic. Only those who have lost hope in the object of their affection will ever frame its future in blackest hues.
So, yes, Ziva go ahead and be opmitistic. Nothing is gained by being pessimistic even if in the end our hopes at not realized. But I think that you are right and they are wrong: John McCain will be an active agent in the liberation of Cuba. His temperament would not allow him to be otherwise, and scores are not only settled in movies. It sometimes happens in real life, too.
Babaloo's Waterloos: When Ideology Trumps Common Sense
George Moneo has just announced that his latest will also be his last post on John McCain, need we say, by popular demand. The reprieve will only be until the convention, though it is welcome nonetheless. Henry, too, has promised to refrain from further comment and devote all his energies to the re-election of the Díaz-Balart brothers, who, in turn, have pledged to do everything in their power to get McCain elected.
The echo chamber apparently isn't working anymore. The Babalunians are losing their patience with these paint-by-the-numbers ideologues whose fealty to conservative principles wouldn't stop the xenophobes in their party from stripping them of their anchor baby citizenship and repatriating them to a country they don't know and obviously wouldn't want to know in its present circumstances. The pressure cooker is all good and well so long as they themselves are not trapped in it.
At every turn now Henry and George are being confronted by irate commenters who will have none of their version of real politik which entails sticking the country with four more years of the Clintons and/or wunderkind Obama as a purgative for the Republican Party's having supposedly abandoned the ideals of Ronald Reagan, except that installing Democrats in power was never any part of Reagan's "ideals." They should remember that the "Gipper" was a team player who supported Gerald Ford for president after losing the nomination to him and despite the fact that he personally despised everything the liberal Ford stood for. Reagan was not a turncoat and he knew how to bide his time. He would be enraged at the antics of sore losers who think it is more important for them to control the party than it is for the party to control the White House.
Much as the U.S. would be affected for the worse by 4 more years of the Clintons, it is nothing compared to what would befall Cuba in the interim. Castro knows it and is preparing to take advantage of that once in a lifetime opportunity to make Cuba a ward of the United States while keeping the communist system in place. He is going to retire from the "presidency" and invest it on a surrogate so that Hillary and/or Obama can negotiate with the regime without having their hands tied by present legislation which makes the lifting of the embargo almost impossible while Castro retains power. Obama has already said that he personally has no compunction about talking to Castro and is prepared to begin discussions with the regime without prior conditions, which means, as I've noted before, that they could be torturing a man in the next room and he'll just continue conceding his way to a rapprochement. Hillary, who has promised not to negotiate directly with Castro, has never said that she wouldn't talk to somebody else. Well, she's going to have that somebody else and all the cover she may require to lift the embargo and enthrone Castro's heirs in power forever.
This is what will happen if McCain loses, and this is what Henry and George are perfectly content should happen so long as they get to give McCain the finger. And let me not leave out Val, either: he thinks all this is "perfect."
The echo chamber apparently isn't working anymore. The Babalunians are losing their patience with these paint-by-the-numbers ideologues whose fealty to conservative principles wouldn't stop the xenophobes in their party from stripping them of their anchor baby citizenship and repatriating them to a country they don't know and obviously wouldn't want to know in its present circumstances. The pressure cooker is all good and well so long as they themselves are not trapped in it.
At every turn now Henry and George are being confronted by irate commenters who will have none of their version of real politik which entails sticking the country with four more years of the Clintons and/or wunderkind Obama as a purgative for the Republican Party's having supposedly abandoned the ideals of Ronald Reagan, except that installing Democrats in power was never any part of Reagan's "ideals." They should remember that the "Gipper" was a team player who supported Gerald Ford for president after losing the nomination to him and despite the fact that he personally despised everything the liberal Ford stood for. Reagan was not a turncoat and he knew how to bide his time. He would be enraged at the antics of sore losers who think it is more important for them to control the party than it is for the party to control the White House.
Much as the U.S. would be affected for the worse by 4 more years of the Clintons, it is nothing compared to what would befall Cuba in the interim. Castro knows it and is preparing to take advantage of that once in a lifetime opportunity to make Cuba a ward of the United States while keeping the communist system in place. He is going to retire from the "presidency" and invest it on a surrogate so that Hillary and/or Obama can negotiate with the regime without having their hands tied by present legislation which makes the lifting of the embargo almost impossible while Castro retains power. Obama has already said that he personally has no compunction about talking to Castro and is prepared to begin discussions with the regime without prior conditions, which means, as I've noted before, that they could be torturing a man in the next room and he'll just continue conceding his way to a rapprochement. Hillary, who has promised not to negotiate directly with Castro, has never said that she wouldn't talk to somebody else. Well, she's going to have that somebody else and all the cover she may require to lift the embargo and enthrone Castro's heirs in power forever.
This is what will happen if McCain loses, and this is what Henry and George are perfectly content should happen so long as they get to give McCain the finger. And let me not leave out Val, either: he thinks all this is "perfect."
OK, Here Are My Thousand Words For Today
President Barack Obama with Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alfred C. Sharpton.
Or how about this one:
The son he never had; the father he never had.
You are cordially invited to submit your own caption for this picture.
(And don't despair, I'll be posting a less graphic thousand words momentarily).
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Notable & Maybe Final : George Moneo Quits the Republican Party (Again)
"I'm leaving for good this time, John. I mean it. There's no coming back, John. There will be no reconciliations, no explanations, no justifications." — George Moneo, "Dear John," Babalú, February 6, 2008
George Moneo has now proclaimed that he, too, cannot support John McCain as the Republican candidate and has done Henry one better and announced that he is leaving the Republican Party (for the second time). We suppose that this time he is actually leaving for good unless they can clone Reagan's DNA.
Val Prieto cannot be very happy at these desertions. He has not uttered one word, but inside he's dying. He knows that McCain can hold a grudge and won't soon forget the pile-on to which he was subjected at Val's blog. What will this mean? Well, no more invitations to the White House for Val, no more conference calls, no more Christmas cards from the Executive Office, nada.
Val has been booted.
POSTSCRIPT:
RCAB is reliably informed that Val Prieto was not actually invited to the White House but to the Executive Building next to the White House. Well, he won't be invited to the Executive Building either in a McCain White House.
George Moneo has now proclaimed that he, too, cannot support John McCain as the Republican candidate and has done Henry one better and announced that he is leaving the Republican Party (for the second time). We suppose that this time he is actually leaving for good unless they can clone Reagan's DNA.
Val Prieto cannot be very happy at these desertions. He has not uttered one word, but inside he's dying. He knows that McCain can hold a grudge and won't soon forget the pile-on to which he was subjected at Val's blog. What will this mean? Well, no more invitations to the White House for Val, no more conference calls, no more Christmas cards from the Executive Office, nada.
Val has been booted.
POSTSCRIPT:
RCAB is reliably informed that Val Prieto was not actually invited to the White House but to the Executive Building next to the White House. Well, he won't be invited to the Executive Building either in a McCain White House.
Notable & Resigned: Henry Ends 33-Year Career As a Political Animal
The political animal since the age of 5 has taken a vow of political celibacy till 2012. He is willing, at last, to allow Babalú to resume being an anti-Castro blog rather than the anti-McCain blog he has made it lately. His personal animus towards McCain, which was at no time tempered by respect for or even recognition of his unwavering commitment to a free Cuba over his entire political career, and which, in the end, went so far afield as to turn the race into a beauty pageant, when no other comparison to the remaining candidates gave any of them the advantage over McCain, shows that Henry does not understand that enthroning the Clintons with Obama as their heir apparent is not an option preferable to supporting John McCain.
Exactly what does he think this country will look like in 2012 if the Clinton(X2)/Obama ticket is elected? Where does he expect the Castros to be in 2012? Still in power, certainly, and with the U.S. underwriting the regime. Is this acceptable to him? Not only is this scenario acceptable but he is actually hoping that both the U.S. and Cuba will be as messed-up as possible in 2012 so as to insure that golden boy Newt Gingrich or a Newt-clone can recapture the White House in a cakewalk and restore ideological purity to the Republican Party. In other words, throw the baby out with the bath water and hope that he finds his way to you in four years.
The Republican Party has lost its way — Henry is right there — and become a party without core principles (except nativism) but this has nothing to do with John McCain and everything to do with fomenting divisions in American society rather than uniting Americans. The selection of John McCain as its candidate in 2008 is a timely and necessary corrective, which will, hopefully, distance the GOP from the slash and burn politics of all who want all or nothing and would prefer the party to go down to defeat rather than be proven wrong as wrong they undoubtedly are.
Exactly what does he think this country will look like in 2012 if the Clinton(X2)/Obama ticket is elected? Where does he expect the Castros to be in 2012? Still in power, certainly, and with the U.S. underwriting the regime. Is this acceptable to him? Not only is this scenario acceptable but he is actually hoping that both the U.S. and Cuba will be as messed-up as possible in 2012 so as to insure that golden boy Newt Gingrich or a Newt-clone can recapture the White House in a cakewalk and restore ideological purity to the Republican Party. In other words, throw the baby out with the bath water and hope that he finds his way to you in four years.
The Republican Party has lost its way — Henry is right there — and become a party without core principles (except nativism) but this has nothing to do with John McCain and everything to do with fomenting divisions in American society rather than uniting Americans. The selection of John McCain as its candidate in 2008 is a timely and necessary corrective, which will, hopefully, distance the GOP from the slash and burn politics of all who want all or nothing and would prefer the party to go down to defeat rather than be proven wrong as wrong they undoubtedly are.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Notable & Dignified: Israel's U.N. Ambassador In a Duel with Castro's
"Who is this group [the Non-Aligned Movement] representing since the Cold War has already ended?" — Israeli U.N. Ambassador Dan Gillerman, at a Security Council meeting, February 5, 2008
Responding to Castro's representative at the U.N., the contemptibly-named Isodoro Malmierca, who had accused Israel, in the name of the so-called Non-Aligned Movement, of maintaining a "blockade" on the Gaza Strip (now even the desert is being "blockaded?"), Ambassador Dan Gillerman dismissed Malmierca's charges and the fanthom organization which he claimed to represent with those memorable words.
It is reminds one of King Juan Carlos' confrontation with Hugo Chávez at the Inter-American conference last year. It shows the same impatience with hypocrisy and cant. Of course, it is not a king who said it, but dignity is not the exclusive realm of kings. At a place where diplomatic protocal is a cover for the most uncivil conduct and truth is always inopportune and almost in bad taste, the words of Ambassador Dan Gillerman are all the more to be commended for their uncompromising candor. The so-called Non-Aligned Movement is the biggest anachronism in international politics. Even in its heyday it was nothing but a naked lie. Cuba's prominence in that organization and Castro's election as its head could have left no doubt in anybody's mind that all its members, to one extent or another and absolutely as a collective, were in Moscow's service.
Now that there is no Soviet Union, what master does it serve? To whom does it answer? And what possible relevancy can it have in a world where polarities have changed? The Non-Aligned Movement is nothing more now than an enemy of the West, and, in particular, of the United States and Israel. It is a club of losers and opportunists in the scrabble of geopolitics, worthy of no more consideration than Mr. Gillerman accords it.
Responding to Castro's representative at the U.N., the contemptibly-named Isodoro Malmierca, who had accused Israel, in the name of the so-called Non-Aligned Movement, of maintaining a "blockade" on the Gaza Strip (now even the desert is being "blockaded?"), Ambassador Dan Gillerman dismissed Malmierca's charges and the fanthom organization which he claimed to represent with those memorable words.
It is reminds one of King Juan Carlos' confrontation with Hugo Chávez at the Inter-American conference last year. It shows the same impatience with hypocrisy and cant. Of course, it is not a king who said it, but dignity is not the exclusive realm of kings. At a place where diplomatic protocal is a cover for the most uncivil conduct and truth is always inopportune and almost in bad taste, the words of Ambassador Dan Gillerman are all the more to be commended for their uncompromising candor. The so-called Non-Aligned Movement is the biggest anachronism in international politics. Even in its heyday it was nothing but a naked lie. Cuba's prominence in that organization and Castro's election as its head could have left no doubt in anybody's mind that all its members, to one extent or another and absolutely as a collective, were in Moscow's service.
Now that there is no Soviet Union, what master does it serve? To whom does it answer? And what possible relevancy can it have in a world where polarities have changed? The Non-Aligned Movement is nothing more now than an enemy of the West, and, in particular, of the United States and Israel. It is a club of losers and opportunists in the scrabble of geopolitics, worthy of no more consideration than Mr. Gillerman accords it.
Notable & More Inverted: What Does Henry Want In a President?
"The contrasts between a young charismatic man and an old broken down Washington insider will be stark." — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Two Against One" (comment), Babalú, February 5, 2008
Does Henry want to elect a president or screw one?
Does Henry want to elect a president or screw one?
Emilo Estefan Comes to the Rescue of Stranded Balseros
Our good friend Charlie Bravo has written an excellent post on Emilio Estefan's recent attempt to reconnect with the Cuban exile community, which he offended in the "Escheban" affaire, by coming to the aid of some young balseros stranded in Mexico who didn't have airfare to the U.S. The proverbially tightfisted Emilio, who holds the penny while his wife pinches it, probably used some of his zillion bonus miles to pay for the publicity (I mean, the tickets). Perhaps he will make some new discovery among the rescued balseros. As I commented on Killcastro, I have no doubt that Emilio will capitalize on any young balsero's assets; but, under no circumstances, will he ever become a patron to any female who might some day rival his wife. He is at most a one-woman man and manager.
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/2008/02/emilio-estefan-born-again-cuban.html
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/2008/02/emilio-estefan-born-again-cuban.html
The Solution to the "Migrant Problem:" Let Robots Pick the Fruit
There is finally a solution to the "Migrant Problem," which, like the "Jewish Problem" of 70 years ago, was never a problem for anybody except those who chose to regard it as a "problem" (and they, of course, were the ones with the problem). Fortunately, this "final solution" doesn't involve gas ovens but robots.
No, this is not a joke. They have finally found a practical application for robots and a group of human beings whom they can replace without anyone shedding a tear about the implications of this new brave (and soul-less) world. Of course, you don't need a soul to pick fruit. You don't even have to tell the difference between ripe and unripe since most Americans can't tell the difference anyway. Fruit picked by robots will perhaps be a little more bruised (like "mechanically separated chicken") but that will be more than offset by the knowledge that dirty migrant hands did not touch the fruit.
Although you would not think so from the xenophobic propaganda the Republican candidates are spewing for popular consumption this electoral season, there is actually a shortage of migrant workers in this country. In Michican 20 percent of the asparagus crop and 15 percent of the apple crop were lost because they didn't have enough workers to harvest them. The situation is even worse in New York's Hudson Valley where 3 billion apples wait to be picked and there is no local labor force to pick them. Farmers are blaming tighter border security for the shortage of migrant workers. The situation will only get worse when the Department of Homeland Security implements new regulations that will force employers to fire undocumented workers or be fined out of existence. To maintain Homeland Security nowadays obviously involves protecting Americans from illegal fruitpickers, putting farmers out of business and making every fruit and vegetable sold in this country cost more per pound than the price of a gallon of gas.
Well, what is a country to do that doesn't want to pay $19.95 per lb. for tomatoes but at the same time wants only native-born tomato pickers? Raise the minimum wage above the poverty line? God forbid! Do you want Wall Street to crash? Teach young Americans about the "dignity of work" (this phrase, by the way, is generally used to romanticize exploitation) in the hope that perhaps some might be persuaded to leave their sinecures at McDonald's for the "extremely labor intensive" work of a fieldhand. The historical record would belie such hopes, as there is no known instance of a house slave applying to become a fieldhand. No, there is really nothing that can be done to convince the marginalized of society to marginalize themselves even more. And middle- and upper-class Americans, of course, will never learn to be grateful that they don't have to pick their own fruit and vegetables.
It is under such circumstances of our own making that science, again, saves us from ourselves in the non-person of the agrobot, which will replace, or so it is hoped, the migrant worker. California fruit growers are financing the creation of the robotic fruit picker, a marvel of science which will at least match if not surpass the fruit-picking capacity of the average Mexican laborer and will not require as much maintenance (not that migrants require much). Whether or not, in the end, the agrobots perform up to expectations, at least, Homeland Security will not require them to have green cards. It is projected that it will require four more years of research and many millions of dollars more before the first agrobots are working side by side with live fruit pickers. That will be only in the beginning until the agrobots learn the ropes (or should that be "cables?").
Let me reiterate that this is not a joke. The San Diego-based company carrying out research on prototypes is called Vision Robotics. It's CEO, robot designer Derek Morikowa, says that "robots working in teams will soon be able to map out an entire orchard." The next challenge will be to program them to climb 17 feet citrus trees with regulation 38 lb. picking bags. After that hurdle is overcome the next challenge will be to program the agrobots to climb down again. The agrobot is described as an "octopus" (yes, why indeed limit it to two hands?) with optical scanners that can detect the fruit and mechanical arms that will pluck it "delicately without bruising it."
I can't help but wonder why Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee haven't publicized the "Robotic Solution" to the "Migrant Problem." I am sure that it would be received jubilantly by xenophobes from coast to coast. No longer will they be left openmouthed when asked, "Well, then, who's going to replace the Mexicans? Are you, or your kids?" For some reason , they take that question as a personal insult. It must have something to do with their conception of the "dignity of work."
No, this is not a joke. They have finally found a practical application for robots and a group of human beings whom they can replace without anyone shedding a tear about the implications of this new brave (and soul-less) world. Of course, you don't need a soul to pick fruit. You don't even have to tell the difference between ripe and unripe since most Americans can't tell the difference anyway. Fruit picked by robots will perhaps be a little more bruised (like "mechanically separated chicken") but that will be more than offset by the knowledge that dirty migrant hands did not touch the fruit.
Although you would not think so from the xenophobic propaganda the Republican candidates are spewing for popular consumption this electoral season, there is actually a shortage of migrant workers in this country. In Michican 20 percent of the asparagus crop and 15 percent of the apple crop were lost because they didn't have enough workers to harvest them. The situation is even worse in New York's Hudson Valley where 3 billion apples wait to be picked and there is no local labor force to pick them. Farmers are blaming tighter border security for the shortage of migrant workers. The situation will only get worse when the Department of Homeland Security implements new regulations that will force employers to fire undocumented workers or be fined out of existence. To maintain Homeland Security nowadays obviously involves protecting Americans from illegal fruitpickers, putting farmers out of business and making every fruit and vegetable sold in this country cost more per pound than the price of a gallon of gas.
Well, what is a country to do that doesn't want to pay $19.95 per lb. for tomatoes but at the same time wants only native-born tomato pickers? Raise the minimum wage above the poverty line? God forbid! Do you want Wall Street to crash? Teach young Americans about the "dignity of work" (this phrase, by the way, is generally used to romanticize exploitation) in the hope that perhaps some might be persuaded to leave their sinecures at McDonald's for the "extremely labor intensive" work of a fieldhand. The historical record would belie such hopes, as there is no known instance of a house slave applying to become a fieldhand. No, there is really nothing that can be done to convince the marginalized of society to marginalize themselves even more. And middle- and upper-class Americans, of course, will never learn to be grateful that they don't have to pick their own fruit and vegetables.
It is under such circumstances of our own making that science, again, saves us from ourselves in the non-person of the agrobot, which will replace, or so it is hoped, the migrant worker. California fruit growers are financing the creation of the robotic fruit picker, a marvel of science which will at least match if not surpass the fruit-picking capacity of the average Mexican laborer and will not require as much maintenance (not that migrants require much). Whether or not, in the end, the agrobots perform up to expectations, at least, Homeland Security will not require them to have green cards. It is projected that it will require four more years of research and many millions of dollars more before the first agrobots are working side by side with live fruit pickers. That will be only in the beginning until the agrobots learn the ropes (or should that be "cables?").
Let me reiterate that this is not a joke. The San Diego-based company carrying out research on prototypes is called Vision Robotics. It's CEO, robot designer Derek Morikowa, says that "robots working in teams will soon be able to map out an entire orchard." The next challenge will be to program them to climb 17 feet citrus trees with regulation 38 lb. picking bags. After that hurdle is overcome the next challenge will be to program the agrobots to climb down again. The agrobot is described as an "octopus" (yes, why indeed limit it to two hands?) with optical scanners that can detect the fruit and mechanical arms that will pluck it "delicately without bruising it."
I can't help but wonder why Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee haven't publicized the "Robotic Solution" to the "Migrant Problem." I am sure that it would be received jubilantly by xenophobes from coast to coast. No longer will they be left openmouthed when asked, "Well, then, who's going to replace the Mexicans? Are you, or your kids?" For some reason , they take that question as a personal insult. It must have something to do with their conception of the "dignity of work."
Notable & Inverted: Now Henry Thinks McCain Can't Win Because He's "U-G-L-Y"
"If we put up McCain, who is currently 71 years old and who has spent the better part of 3 decades in Washington, against Barack Obama, who is 46 years old, should he win the Democrat nomination you can bet your sweet bippy that it's going to be U-G-L-Y in November. And it's not just McCain's age. You can call him a maverick if you like but McCain is not a good public speaker and an even worse debater." — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Landslide," Babalú, February 4, 2008
Has it really come down to this at long last? Henry Gómez is urging Babalú's readers not to vote for McCain because he is "U-G-L-Y" and cannot possibly beat Obama in a debate on account of it? Should beauty be the standard used to pick presidents? Poor Abe Lincoln, who called himself the ugliest man who ever lived, was lucky, I suppose, because there was no television in his day, or, perhaps, because the American people then were not as shallow and superficial as Henry supposes them to be now or as he himself is. It has long been the received wisdom that Richard Nixon lost the first televised debate to JFK because Kennedy was more photogenic. Polls at the time showed that that those who watched the debate on television gave JFK the edge while those who heard it on radio favored Nixon. If that was indeed the criteria which Americans used to judge between them then they really got what they deserved. And they will surely get even worse if Obama's relative youth and inexperience trump McCain's white hairs and 50 years of service to this country.
Henry's man, Mitt Romney, is certainly very conscious of the age factor and has done everything that a heterosexual male can do to maximize his appearance, giving new life to the expression "gilding the lily." Harper's Magazine reported, in November 2007, in a cover story entitled "How to Fabricate a Conservative," that "Romney had spent several hundred dollars of campaign funds for the ministrations of Hidden Beauty, a California company that describes itself as 'a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men's grooming and spa services' ... Stacy Andrews, who owns Hidden Beauty, said [Romney] barely needed makeup. 'He's already tan,' she told reporters. 'We basically put a drop of foundation on him... and we powdered him a little bit."
Now, that's a man Henry can get behind.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/0081773
Has it really come down to this at long last? Henry Gómez is urging Babalú's readers not to vote for McCain because he is "U-G-L-Y" and cannot possibly beat Obama in a debate on account of it? Should beauty be the standard used to pick presidents? Poor Abe Lincoln, who called himself the ugliest man who ever lived, was lucky, I suppose, because there was no television in his day, or, perhaps, because the American people then were not as shallow and superficial as Henry supposes them to be now or as he himself is. It has long been the received wisdom that Richard Nixon lost the first televised debate to JFK because Kennedy was more photogenic. Polls at the time showed that that those who watched the debate on television gave JFK the edge while those who heard it on radio favored Nixon. If that was indeed the criteria which Americans used to judge between them then they really got what they deserved. And they will surely get even worse if Obama's relative youth and inexperience trump McCain's white hairs and 50 years of service to this country.
Henry's man, Mitt Romney, is certainly very conscious of the age factor and has done everything that a heterosexual male can do to maximize his appearance, giving new life to the expression "gilding the lily." Harper's Magazine reported, in November 2007, in a cover story entitled "How to Fabricate a Conservative," that "Romney had spent several hundred dollars of campaign funds for the ministrations of Hidden Beauty, a California company that describes itself as 'a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men's grooming and spa services' ... Stacy Andrews, who owns Hidden Beauty, said [Romney] barely needed makeup. 'He's already tan,' she told reporters. 'We basically put a drop of foundation on him... and we powdered him a little bit."
Now, that's a man Henry can get behind.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/0081773
Monday, February 4, 2008
Notable & Desperate: Henry Loves the "Huckster"
"If I'm Mitt Romney, I'm burning up the phone to Mike Huckabee right now. Though I prefer Thompson on his ticket, Huckabee is looking to win a couple of Southern states that could fall to Romney if they announce their ticket tomorrow. Huckabee, being a Baptist might allay some of the fears about Romney being a "Cultist". It's a hail mary pass, but as we saw tonight sometimes prayers are answered. — Henry "Conductor" Gómez, "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer!" (comment), Babalú, February 3, 2008
Now Henry wants Romney to want the "Huckster" after dumping on Mike Huckabee almost as much as on McCain. Unwilling that the "Anti-Christ" get the Republican nomination, Henry has unceremoniously dumped Fred-Also-Ran and is urging Romney to recruit Huckabee as his running mate and announce the ticket on the eve of Super Tuesday. Henry is now promoting an alliance between the two biggest xenophobes in the Republican Party (except for Tom Tancredo, who has endorsed Romney) in order to stop the only non-xenophobe from becoming the GOP standard bearer in November. Very strange conduct from one who claims not to be a xenophobe himself.
Now Henry wants Romney to want the "Huckster" after dumping on Mike Huckabee almost as much as on McCain. Unwilling that the "Anti-Christ" get the Republican nomination, Henry has unceremoniously dumped Fred-Also-Ran and is urging Romney to recruit Huckabee as his running mate and announce the ticket on the eve of Super Tuesday. Henry is now promoting an alliance between the two biggest xenophobes in the Republican Party (except for Tom Tancredo, who has endorsed Romney) in order to stop the only non-xenophobe from becoming the GOP standard bearer in November. Very strange conduct from one who claims not to be a xenophobe himself.
The Truth About "Shoot Down:" It's About Payback, Not Truth
Shoot Down is a hit on José Basulto, founder of Brothers to the Rescue. It is not meant to be a slam of Castro, and if it is critical of him, it is only so incidentally and only to mask its real agenda. The documentary was financed by Maggie Khuly, mother of director Christina Khuly Eger, with the millions she was awarded from the frozen assets of the Cuban people when her brother Armando Alejandre, Jr. (and three others) was murdered over international waters at Raúl Castro's orders while flying a humanitarian mission for BTTR. Maggie Khuly blames Basulto for her brother's death much as Cindy Sheehan blames Bush for her son's death and Shoot Down is Maggie's desquite. If it also launches her daughter's career as a documentary filmmaker then that's a bonus.
Notable & Prideful: Henry Is Now an "Official Writer"
"Hey, I'm officially a writer. Recently I posted a Q&A with Cristina Khuly who made the film "Shoot Down" here at Babalu. I was contacted by Orlando Weekly and asked if I'd sell them the piece. 25 bucks baby. But now I guess I can say I sold something I wrote." — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Hey, I'm Officially a Writer," Babalú, February 4, 2008
That's how William Faulkner started and for the same pay.
POSTSCRIPT:
An interesting exchange ensued at Babalú between "The Economist" and Fantomas, which underscores what I have noted lately, that Fantomas scourges the Babalunians with my whip, and they, in turn, make him the butt of their frustrations:
Felicidades Escritor de mi parte. But Somebody will have a field day mañana with this bit of news.
Posted by: Abajofidel, February 4, 2008 01:33 AM
Do you think I honestly care what such an asshole thinks? Do you write on your blog based on what other people think?
Posted by: Henry "Economist" Gomez at February 4, 2008 01:37 AM
Come to think of it, I know the answer to that question. It's yes. Otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to come tell me every time jerky says something about me. I'm sure what he may say about you bothers you. A mi me roza.
Posted by: Henry "Economist" Gomez, February 4, 2008 01:40 AM
Have I mentioned a name tocayo?... Enjoy your success. Easy, tranquilo. What he says about me, ya tu sabes I play with it
Posted by: Abajofidel, February 4, 2008 02:05 AM
From this exchange we may deduce the following:
1). Henry "honestly cares what such an asshole thinks."
2). Fantomas knows he cares and torments him with everything I write about him.
3). Henry now writes with a view to what I may say about what he writes. I am, as it were, his "thought check."
4). Henry denies it but affirms everything in his denial.
5). Fantomas thinks he's the cat.
POSTSCRIPT 2:
#3 adds his two cents:
C'mon Henry, you know that Abajo is a two-faced boot-licker playing both sides of the field. He comes here saying very guapo things, and then over there he can't wait to stick his head up his master's ass.
Posted by: George L. Moneo at February 4, 2008 07:57 AM
That's how William Faulkner started and for the same pay.
POSTSCRIPT:
An interesting exchange ensued at Babalú between "The Economist" and Fantomas, which underscores what I have noted lately, that Fantomas scourges the Babalunians with my whip, and they, in turn, make him the butt of their frustrations:
Felicidades Escritor de mi parte. But Somebody will have a field day mañana with this bit of news.
Posted by: Abajofidel, February 4, 2008 01:33 AM
Do you think I honestly care what such an asshole thinks? Do you write on your blog based on what other people think?
Posted by: Henry "Economist" Gomez at February 4, 2008 01:37 AM
Come to think of it, I know the answer to that question. It's yes. Otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to come tell me every time jerky says something about me. I'm sure what he may say about you bothers you. A mi me roza.
Posted by: Henry "Economist" Gomez, February 4, 2008 01:40 AM
Have I mentioned a name tocayo?... Enjoy your success. Easy, tranquilo. What he says about me, ya tu sabes I play with it
Posted by: Abajofidel, February 4, 2008 02:05 AM
From this exchange we may deduce the following:
1). Henry "honestly cares what such an asshole thinks."
2). Fantomas knows he cares and torments him with everything I write about him.
3). Henry now writes with a view to what I may say about what he writes. I am, as it were, his "thought check."
4). Henry denies it but affirms everything in his denial.
5). Fantomas thinks he's the cat.
POSTSCRIPT 2:
#3 adds his two cents:
C'mon Henry, you know that Abajo is a two-faced boot-licker playing both sides of the field. He comes here saying very guapo things, and then over there he can't wait to stick his head up his master's ass.
Posted by: George L. Moneo at February 4, 2008 07:57 AM
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Hillary Ist Nicht Hitler
Is anything beyond the 3 Babalooney Stooges? Can they plumb even deeper in the regions of bad taste and convoluted logic which they have staked as their own? The answer is yes. George Moneo, the usually inconspicuous "Shep" of the trio, has just posted a picture of Hillary with outstretched hand against a black and red background with the caption "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer!" which he borrowed from Drudge. I wish they would save that comparison for those who have earned it, the Castros, Mugabes and Kim-Il Jungs of this world. To compare Hillary to Hitler is to trivialize evil. She deserves to be compared not to Hitler but Boss Tweed, though even that may be a less than perfect pairing since Tweed scaled the rungs of Tammany one by one and Hillary rode on Bill's coattails and is now returning the favor. There is only one person that Hillary may have had a hand in dispatching to the other world (Vince Foster). With stats like that she's not even in Charles Manson's league.
Why John McCain Is Unbeatable
Not since Ronald Reagan has any Republican been in the position to change the American political landscape as fundamentally as John McCain stands to do in November. His candidacy will be the catalyst that completes the migration of all remaining white Southern Democrats to the GOP. The first wave of converts, the Reagan Democrats, were more ideological and conservative than the McCain Democrats. Many who crossed party lines in the early 1980s had been Wallace Democrats before they became Reagan Democrats. This new group is different. McCain will attract moderate and even left of center Democrats who are not quite ready to support either a socialist (Hillary) or a Socialist (Obama). Their lite liberalism has more in common with McCain's lite conservatism than with the 1960s radicalism of their own party's candidates. Critics will no doubt attribute their crossing of party lines to issues of race or gender and that may indeed be a factor in some cases. The same phenomenon might have been seen in reverse if Colin Powell, another lite Republican, was the candidate instead of McCain. The truth, however, is that if it had been any woman but Hillary and any black but Obama most white Southern Democrats would have supported them against a conservative zealot.
As for the zealots who cannot see their way to supporting McCain because his conservatism is not as pure as they would want, they will have the choice of sitting out this election or voting for McCain anyway, since, clearly, they will not support Hillary or Obama regardless of the infantile threats of some prominent and obscure pundits to do so, which, if sincere, would put them out of the conservative mainstream and make them bigger renegades than the man they claim to detest.
If conservative voters desert the GOP because McCain is the candidate, their absence will be more than offset by the desertion of Democratic Party's base if Obama is not his party's nominee for president. This prospect, or Doomsday's scenario, has the entire Democratic establishment in a panic. Ted Kennedy, although he knows perfectly well that Hillary will be the standard bearer in November, expects it and is relieved by it, nonetheless is supporting Obama to preempt a mass defection of blacks from the party. I suspect that he is doing so with Hillary's approval if not Bill's. Now, more than ever before, the Democratic Party must at least seem inclusive of blacks. They are hopeful that Obama's endorsement by the dean of liberals, the heiress of Camelot and other Democrats from its matted glory days will convince African-Americans that they still do have a stake in the party, that it is not a party dominated by old white liberals (male and female) who know what is best for them though they have been less than vocal in recent years in support of their interests.
By no possible calculation could John McCain lose in November, and this is indeed remarkable. Little credit is owed to him personally and even less to Bush who has done as much as any sitting president can do to insure that his party gets voted out of office. It is, rather, a happy confluence of events and the peculiar predicament in which the Democratic Party finds itself which will get John MacCain elected president.
As for the zealots who cannot see their way to supporting McCain because his conservatism is not as pure as they would want, they will have the choice of sitting out this election or voting for McCain anyway, since, clearly, they will not support Hillary or Obama regardless of the infantile threats of some prominent and obscure pundits to do so, which, if sincere, would put them out of the conservative mainstream and make them bigger renegades than the man they claim to detest.
If conservative voters desert the GOP because McCain is the candidate, their absence will be more than offset by the desertion of Democratic Party's base if Obama is not his party's nominee for president. This prospect, or Doomsday's scenario, has the entire Democratic establishment in a panic. Ted Kennedy, although he knows perfectly well that Hillary will be the standard bearer in November, expects it and is relieved by it, nonetheless is supporting Obama to preempt a mass defection of blacks from the party. I suspect that he is doing so with Hillary's approval if not Bill's. Now, more than ever before, the Democratic Party must at least seem inclusive of blacks. They are hopeful that Obama's endorsement by the dean of liberals, the heiress of Camelot and other Democrats from its matted glory days will convince African-Americans that they still do have a stake in the party, that it is not a party dominated by old white liberals (male and female) who know what is best for them though they have been less than vocal in recent years in support of their interests.
By no possible calculation could John McCain lose in November, and this is indeed remarkable. Little credit is owed to him personally and even less to Bush who has done as much as any sitting president can do to insure that his party gets voted out of office. It is, rather, a happy confluence of events and the peculiar predicament in which the Democratic Party finds itself which will get John MacCain elected president.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Notable & Desperate: How Would You Like to Write a Post on Babaloo?
"So what's up? You're [sic] chance to be a Babalu contributor. The best stuff posted in the comments will be moved up here." — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Friday Open Thread," Babalú, February 1, 2008
Henry Gómez is inviting commenters to become editors-for-a-day. Will we now see hundreds of names on Babalú blog's editorial board? And we thought that a baker's dozen of contributors was rather much. But here's an idea: Why not auction the chance to write a Babalú post? Val's other reader challenges — such as when he offered to shave his legs on live video feed for a fundraiser — have never yielded the results he expected leaving him profoundly depressed and angry. Allowing other opinions at Babalú even for a price would not be as degrading as airing his personal toilette and may prove more beneficial to his charitable concerns.
Henry Gómez is inviting commenters to become editors-for-a-day. Will we now see hundreds of names on Babalú blog's editorial board? And we thought that a baker's dozen of contributors was rather much. But here's an idea: Why not auction the chance to write a Babalú post? Val's other reader challenges — such as when he offered to shave his legs on live video feed for a fundraiser — have never yielded the results he expected leaving him profoundly depressed and angry. Allowing other opinions at Babalú even for a price would not be as degrading as airing his personal toilette and may prove more beneficial to his charitable concerns.
Why Cuban Exiles Supported McCain
We do not personally subscribe to all these reasons but posit them as likely explanations for McCain's conquest of the Cuban vote in Florida, which is a good harbinger for his success there in November:
McCain is for Cuba. It is doubtful that any other Republican candidate had ever spoken the word "Cuba" in a debate or any other occasion in his entire public life except John McCain. This became quite obvious when Romney bestowed Fidel Castro's slogan ("¡Patria o Muerte. Venceremos!") on anti-Castro Cubans and Huckabee revealed that he did not know Cuba was on the State Department's list of terrorist states. McCain, who lived the dark story of Communism in flesh and bone, has never forgotten who his torturers were and has always been a consistent foe of Communist Cuba. His avowal that he would continue the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy because he knows no other alternative (how about the policy that was in place for 30 years before the "WF/DF" policy?) may not weigh as much with older Cubans who don't have relatives on the island or those who regard the newcomers as suspiciously unorthodox in their conduct and tending toward accommodation rather than confrontation with the regime (whether this or true or not).
McCain is an old Cold War warrior. And so, of course, are Cuban exiles. Cubans know that McCain is not a Commie because he was imprisoned and tortured by Commies (and by Cuban Commies, at that). Many of them were, too.
McCain is old. And Cubans are old, too. The median age for Cuban-Americans is twice that for other Hispanics. Besides sharing the same temporal frame of reference, McCain benefitted from the fact that Cuban exiles are wary of young leaders having been monumentally shafted by one 50 years ago. [The Díaz-Balarts are extensions of their father (like George W. was an extension of his father) and Ros-Letihnen is a woman, a well-known quantity and not exactly young anymore].
McCain is not an enemy of paternalistic government. And neither are Cuban-Americans. This is what riles the fundamentalists in the Republican Party, but it is of no concern to Cuban exiles, and may, in fact, be a plus. Cubans don't regard a paternalistic government as a bad thing. This has nothing to do with Castro, whose regime has never concerned itself with the well-being of the Cuban people. It is the Constitution of 1940, abolished by Castro, the most socially-progressive of its time, which is the basis of Cuban support for what has come to be known as the "welfare state."
McCain is not a xenophobe (or at least not a willing one). Cuban exiles know that they are foreigners and it doesn't matter to them and they are shocked that it should matter to anyone else except as a reason to praise them. They are comfortable with who they are and take pride in the fact that they have contributed as much to this country in their post-1959 history here as any other group and more than most.
Although the xenophobes in the GOP have gotten McCain to repudiate the veiled amnesty provisions of McCain-Feingold while hugging for dear life the Wall of Infamy, it is obvious that his sympathies are still with Ronald Reagan's conception of an inclusive America and not Newt Gingrich's "besieged wagon train" mentality. Once president McCain will not be beholden to the xenophobes that despise him regardless of the apparent kow-towing to their anti-Hispanic fixation, and so, Cuban exiles expect, he will not be a danger to them.
The "Contract (on) America" taught Cubans that Republicas like Romney and and Huckabee begin by scapegoating illegal immigrants and end up penalizing the legal ones as well. In the mid 'Nineties, within the living memory of many who had just retired or were approaching retirement age then, Republicans unleashed a panic upon the Cuban elderly when they excluded non-citizens (legal or not) from the social compact and forced them to chose between becoming citizens in their 80s and 90s or being thrown out on the street. (Many chose suicide instead). Whenever the Newt-clones dump on illegal immigrants, Cubans know that they make no distinction between legal or illegal, all foreigners are anathema to them and they are determined to make life impossible for them in this country until they have no choice but to return home . That option, of course, is not open to Cuban exiles, at least not yet.
McCain was regarded as a winner and Cuban don't go for losers. Giuliani had enthralled Cubans in the beginning because he is Latin and knows how to connect with Latins, though his history certainly did not entitle him to much consideration. At the end, though, he had sat out all his early momentum and lost much of his Cuban support to McCain, though retaining enough to beat out Romney and Huckabee among Cuban-Americans voters.
McCain is for Cuba. It is doubtful that any other Republican candidate had ever spoken the word "Cuba" in a debate or any other occasion in his entire public life except John McCain. This became quite obvious when Romney bestowed Fidel Castro's slogan ("¡Patria o Muerte. Venceremos!") on anti-Castro Cubans and Huckabee revealed that he did not know Cuba was on the State Department's list of terrorist states. McCain, who lived the dark story of Communism in flesh and bone, has never forgotten who his torturers were and has always been a consistent foe of Communist Cuba. His avowal that he would continue the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy because he knows no other alternative (how about the policy that was in place for 30 years before the "WF/DF" policy?) may not weigh as much with older Cubans who don't have relatives on the island or those who regard the newcomers as suspiciously unorthodox in their conduct and tending toward accommodation rather than confrontation with the regime (whether this or true or not).
McCain is an old Cold War warrior. And so, of course, are Cuban exiles. Cubans know that McCain is not a Commie because he was imprisoned and tortured by Commies (and by Cuban Commies, at that). Many of them were, too.
McCain is old. And Cubans are old, too. The median age for Cuban-Americans is twice that for other Hispanics. Besides sharing the same temporal frame of reference, McCain benefitted from the fact that Cuban exiles are wary of young leaders having been monumentally shafted by one 50 years ago. [The Díaz-Balarts are extensions of their father (like George W. was an extension of his father) and Ros-Letihnen is a woman, a well-known quantity and not exactly young anymore].
McCain is not an enemy of paternalistic government. And neither are Cuban-Americans. This is what riles the fundamentalists in the Republican Party, but it is of no concern to Cuban exiles, and may, in fact, be a plus. Cubans don't regard a paternalistic government as a bad thing. This has nothing to do with Castro, whose regime has never concerned itself with the well-being of the Cuban people. It is the Constitution of 1940, abolished by Castro, the most socially-progressive of its time, which is the basis of Cuban support for what has come to be known as the "welfare state."
McCain is not a xenophobe (or at least not a willing one). Cuban exiles know that they are foreigners and it doesn't matter to them and they are shocked that it should matter to anyone else except as a reason to praise them. They are comfortable with who they are and take pride in the fact that they have contributed as much to this country in their post-1959 history here as any other group and more than most.
Although the xenophobes in the GOP have gotten McCain to repudiate the veiled amnesty provisions of McCain-Feingold while hugging for dear life the Wall of Infamy, it is obvious that his sympathies are still with Ronald Reagan's conception of an inclusive America and not Newt Gingrich's "besieged wagon train" mentality. Once president McCain will not be beholden to the xenophobes that despise him regardless of the apparent kow-towing to their anti-Hispanic fixation, and so, Cuban exiles expect, he will not be a danger to them.
The "Contract (on) America" taught Cubans that Republicas like Romney and and Huckabee begin by scapegoating illegal immigrants and end up penalizing the legal ones as well. In the mid 'Nineties, within the living memory of many who had just retired or were approaching retirement age then, Republicans unleashed a panic upon the Cuban elderly when they excluded non-citizens (legal or not) from the social compact and forced them to chose between becoming citizens in their 80s and 90s or being thrown out on the street. (Many chose suicide instead). Whenever the Newt-clones dump on illegal immigrants, Cubans know that they make no distinction between legal or illegal, all foreigners are anathema to them and they are determined to make life impossible for them in this country until they have no choice but to return home . That option, of course, is not open to Cuban exiles, at least not yet.
McCain was regarded as a winner and Cuban don't go for losers. Giuliani had enthralled Cubans in the beginning because he is Latin and knows how to connect with Latins, though his history certainly did not entitle him to much consideration. At the end, though, he had sat out all his early momentum and lost much of his Cuban support to McCain, though retaining enough to beat out Romney and Huckabee among Cuban-Americans voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
