We Who Genuflect

This is a special thread for admirers of Val Prieto or Henry Gómez to leave words of support, defense, encouragement or advice. It will be a permanent feature here. If there are other Cuban-American bloggers who merit your approval, feel free to commend them as well, and we shall investigate their claims to recognition here.

This is a public service to our vast and growing readership.

Babalú Commandment #2: Do Unto Others But Not Unto Me

"Now I want to address the issue of China here, because it always comes up as point in this debate: We are hypocritical because we do business with China. Well two things here. First I'm not Chinese so I don't really care and I haven't seen any Chinese-Americans calling for a hard-line against China. Maybe they are out there but I haven't seen them. If they are out there and they want support for a harder line toward China I'd be inclined to offer it." — Henry Gómez,


Thus spake Henry in his latest post on Babalú, something called "Talking Turkey About the Embargo" (I guess Henry saves his vaunted inspiration for the advertising slogans of his trade). All who live under the yoke of Communism are our brothers in suffering, and nothing binds people more closely than shared tribulations. We cannot dismiss or diminish the suffering of the Chinese people without calling into question our own. Yes, it is only human that we should place the liberation of our own country uppermost, as no doubt the Chinese would also. However, our love of country should not obliterate or exclude our common humanity. On the contrary, it should affirm it. To say, as Henry does, "I am not Chinese so I don't really care" is nothing less than to renounce that common humanity and makes us vulnerable to the question: "If you are OK with Communism in China as your total indifference denotes, then why aren't you OK with Communism in Cuba?" That, of course, opens the way for the likes of Steve Clemons to assign venal motives to our opposition to Castro: "You don't care about Communism in China because you don't expect to get anything from it; but you do expect to profit by the fall of Communism in Cuba."

For a Cuban to say that he doesn't care what happens in China because he is not Chinese is like saying: "I am against the death penalty (for Communism is both a life sentence and a death sentence) but only when it is practiced on me or on mine."

No less ridiculous is Henry's suggestion that Chinese-Americans are indifferent to or even supportive of Communism in their homeland. All this tells us is that Henry has never met a Chinese-American in his life and assumes that what is bad for us is good for them.

Communism has killed 76.6 million Chinese since 1949. But there are so many Chinese, right, Henry? So the 76.6 million are not even missed, right, Henry? And Tianamen Square never happened, right, Henry? And the persecution of Christians and the Falun Gong is a myth, right, Henry?

The Chinese countryside is in the grip of the worst and longest famine in Chinese history, which is saying some. Aren't you aware, Henry, that "state capitalism" in China is just another Communist sham like Castro's "personal capitalism," which profits only him?

It's not that there aren't Chinese-Americans who oppose Communism (in any variant) in China. It is you who pay them no heed, and, indeed, question their suffering. That you do this to exalt our own makes it all the more reprehensible.

Here, start educating yourself about Chinese-American exiles and their opposition to the Communist regime:

http://www.chinasupport.net/


UPDATE:

On re-reading the "Turkey and the Embargo" thread, I find the following exchange between Dave Sandoval and Henry. Although Sandoval starts with the usual greasing, he soon is challenging Henry on his callous indifference to the suffering of the Chinese people. The natives are indeed restless when Sandoval of all people challenges #1 Deputy:


Conductor, you wrote a very thoughtful response. But I have to take issue with one thing you said: that you are not Chinese so you don't care about the situation in China.
I disagree. If we want others (non-Cubans) to care about our cause, then we should be an example and show that we care about other, similar causes.
To me, it's about human rights. All human beings have inalienable rights to self expression, to make their own way in life, etc. That goes above and beyond national borders. It's about all the people of the world.
To observe a crime in silence is to commit it. As Cubans, if our moral to be taken seriously by the outside world, we have to have the same moral standards for other countries. That's why it's important we support human rights in China, Cuba, and anywhere else there is injustice.
Posted by: Dave Sandoval at April 11, 2007 10:09 AM

Dave, I was exaggerating to make a point. But the truth is that I can never have the passion over China that I do over Cuba. For one thing it's a completely different history and I'd have to do a lot of studying to get up to date on that history to speak with with any confidence on it. If Cuba, a country with 11 million people is a complicated issue, imagine china with 100 times the population has. And as I said, I would join forces with anyone to support more human rights and reform in China if they reached out for such support but in all my thousands of hours of surfing the net, I tend to find the only people that make such arguments are columnists for the Wall Street Journal and similar publications.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at April 11, 2007 10:28 AM

So Henry has never had "the same passion" over China which he feels for Cuba. No one ever expected him to. What all sensible people would expect is that he not minimize or denigrate the suffering of the victims of Communism in China. Henry admits that he does not know Chinese history and must do a lot of reading before he is qualified to speak on the subject, but this self-confessed ignorance does not prevent him from opining on China as if he were a liberal expert. He would support "more human rights and reform in China," which presupposes, of course, that there has already been reform and an improvement in human rights. But he does not stop there, which would have been bad enough. He goes on to state that in his "thousands of hours surfing the net" [for what?] "the only people who make such arguments [for human rights and reforms in Red China] "are columnists for The Wall Street Journal and similar publications." Henry has just liberated China as Jerry Ford liberated Poland (with his foot stuck firmly in his mouth). There is no Communism in China, according to Henry. Just those nasty WSJ columnists who insist on telling us against the interests of their advertisers that there is a Communist tyranny in China.

Val Prieto Learns and Unlearns His Lesson

I was surprised to read Val Prieto's latest post on the Estefans. It seemed to me that he had finally stopped shilling for Carlos Santana's friends and embraced a true glory of the eternal Cuba, Olga Guillot, who, unlike the very confused Estefans, knows that there isn't a "Good 'Che'" and a "Bad "Che,'" much less a "Good Fidel" and a "Bad Fidel." I had hoped that Val had learned a lesson and would never again stake his reputation or that of his blog on the good intentions of people whose God and country is the Almighty Dollar. It is never wise to praise the rich in undue measure; they don't need the tribute of words because they can buy all the words they want. Even if sincere, the praise will sound hollow and mercenary, and it will benefit neither donor nor recipient.

All signs pointed to a re-evaluation of his conduct because Val was now allowing the Valalusians to question the Estefans' conduct without threatening their critics with summary expulsion from Babalu. In fact, all who left comments on the new thread were critical (but neither more nor less critical than before). One comment in particular stood out for its clarity of thought:

The E$tefan$ probably thought that if they could get Olga Guillot, Chirino or Paquito D'Rivera to agree to be on their Santana/Che project, they could expect a pass from the Cuban American community. The problem for them is that no free, self-respecting Cuban artist would ever agree to work with Santana on a Cuban themed project!
Posted by: Jose Aguirre at April 10, 2007 12:35 PM

Aguirre is right: Santana will always be associated in the exile mind with "Che" Guevara, an association Santana has cultivated and never repudiated. For us, of course, the Estefans' collaboration with Santana cannot be viewed in any other context. Hence Aguirre's description of this undertaking as the "Santana/"Che" project is a particularly happy one. Naturally, such clear thinking could not go unchallenged, nor could the occasion be ignored which it presented to hold a red flag in front of Val and see if he would charge recklessly at the wrong person again:

Again with this same b.s. about the Estefans embarking on a "Che project." If you think that the Estefans are communists, pro-Che, or pro-Fidel, you are just not living in the same reality as the rest of us.
Posted by: Dave Sandoval at April 10, 2007 02:09 PM


Well, Val did take the bait and proceeded to undo whatever progress he had made on this issue, allowing the stale undemocratic rhetoric of the past to overwhelm and cancel the more tolerant attitude which he had just assumed:


Dave,
I dont think anyone is still calling the estefans communists or pro che [nobody ever called them that on Babalú in the first place]. But I for one, even after having previewed the santana clip, even after having heard two of the still unfinished tunes for the 90 millas album, still have a serious problem with a collaboration with Carlos Santana on an album dedicated to Cuba [before Val was willing to vouch blindfolded for the nobility and greatness of that project and its originators]. It is callous on their part ["callous" as in unpatriotic?], and, at best, depicts a massive disconnect with the very community they live and are a part of. [I am glad that Val now accepts the explanation for their conduct which I was the first to propose on Babalú. At the time Henry doubted it but now accepts it too as the most likely explanation]. I stated here that i would not tolerate having them called communists, socialist, fidelistas or anything of that nature and I stand by it. [The little "i" by no means excuses or mitigates the "i won't tolerate." Besides, the Estefans, as already noted, were never called "communists," "socialists," "fidelistas" or any other similar appellation on any of the threads discussing their collaboration with Santana. This is a figment of Val's overprotective imagination]. However, Santana appearing on 90 Millas, from MY POINT OF VIEW, is wrong [it wasn't before; then Val was ready to stake his reputation that it was the right thing to do] and I will not gag myself simply because they are the Estefans [no, Val will not gag himself; but he does threaten to gag others who try to speak their honest mind]. Emilio knows perfectly well what my feelings are on this matter [does Val think Emilio cares a horse's ass about what he thinks?] as I have voiced them personally to him [though to no one else] as well as he knows that I will not repress my opinion [certainly not] or that of others here on this blog [but Val has repressed the opinions of others and continues to do so in this comment] when it comes specifically to this issue [so Val is willing to "repress" opinion on other issues]. They have an opportunity to fix this mess [Val should have called for them to "fix the mess" from the beginning], if they don't take it, i can assure you [more assurances, at this stage?], it will only get worse [glad that Val realizes that now, after it's been pointed out to him numberless times by numerous individuals].
Posted by: Val Prieto at April 10, 2007 02:20 PM

The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes

I am insulted all the time. The greatest insult I ever received in my life was when Val Prieto said on this blog that I was smarter than he was. And now Marc R. Masferrer of Uncommon Sense says that I am an "idiot." Well, flattery will get him nowhere, either. He doesn't mention me by name, which is either a professional courtesy or a ridiculous attempt to "answer me" without attracting my attention. He lumps me in with other "idiots" whom he does mention by name. So much deference even when I am being called an "idiot."

Here is Marc's pathetic attempt to answer me, where, in fact, he does exactly what he accuses me of doing — attacking "our own":


Cuba Idiot Alert Works Overtime

It's a neck and neck battle [race?] for the biggest idiot whose words I have read today [it shouldn't be. Why don't you just read your own words?].

The idiot alert on my computer is about to overheat [just be careful the "idiot alert" in your head doesn't overheat].

First, there's the bloguero [that's me!] who saves his sharpest barbs [yes, they are sharp, aren't they?] not for Fidel Castro, but for those of us who, I think, share the same distaste for the dictator that he does [what? you only "think" that you share my hate (not "distaste") for Castro?]. It's OK if our personalities or our approaches don't mesh [why should they?], so let's stay focused on the real evil, please [with sugar on it?], not on petty comemierda [he means comemierderia], like who links [or unlinks] to whom, better suited for a kindergarten playground than a serious marketplace of ideas [surely you don't mean your optimistically-entitled blog with posts like the one critiqued below?].

Common Sense is Better than Uncommon Sense

Let's face it, we don't have many unconditional allies anymore. Democratic and Republican politicians are vying with one another to see which can best serve the interests of multinationals vis-à-vis Cuba. The days are long gone when we could take it for granted that a majority of Republican politicians would uphold sanctions against Communist Cuba. Our firmest ally in the Democratic camp, Senator Joe Lieberman, was practically excommunicated by his own party for supporting us. No, it wasn't just because of his stand on the Iraq War. Go to the archives of the Democratic Underground, an odious blog where more than a million Democrats gather to vent their rage against their country (and us), and you will find there in equal proportion condemnations of Lieberman for his support of the Iraq War, his support of Israel and his support of a Free Cuba. Since Cuban exiles are the favorite bogeymen at the DU, Lieberman's ties to us were used as the definitive proof that he is a "fascist." Yet despite all the criticism he received for it from the stalwarts of his own party, Lieberman has never flinched in his support for our cause. Lieberman prevailed over the party establishment and won re-election in his state as an independent when he was denied his party's nomination. God bless the good people of Connecticut for going against the national tide and rebuking the Democratic establishment's cannibalistic tendencies.

The story of Joe Lieberman holds useful lessons for politicians of both parties who change positions like they change ties. It is or should be a useful lesson for us as well. We should always stand by politicians who support our cause regardless of party. Indeed, regardless of any other positions which they may also hold that have nothing to do with the struggle we have been waging for 48 years. I don't know Lieberman's position on abortion and I don't care. Even if he were a proponent of abortion on demand (which I am not), I would regard the fate of 11 million Cubans who are living aborted lives as more important to me. Indeed, there is no dichotomy here for me: fighting Castro also means fighting the biggest abortionist in the world.

Marc R. Masferrer, author of the Cuban blog Uncommon Sense, has lately been demonstrating very little by thrashing an even firmer ally of our cause than Lieberman (if such a thing is conceivable). The man whom Masferrer labelled an "idiot" on his blog on April 5 I consider a prophet, not because of his religious convictions (which I couldn't care less about) but because he dared to say what had to be said and didn't mince words about it. His public call to assassinate Hugo Chávez was the wisest and most prescient statement that any American politician or religious leader ever uttered in living memory. One would have to go back 150 years to find any parallel. If John Brown was a prophet, then surely so is Pat Robertson. The evil that John Brown combatted as the scourge of this Republic was slavery; the evil now threatening it and the entire American continent is embodied in Hugo Chávez, Castro's chosen "continuator" who may achieve because of U.S. indifference what Castro could not achieve with the opposition of the U.S. Pat Robertson is the only man in American politics who sees this. Surely, as Cubans, we should be able to see it also.

But Masferrer does not see it. His uncle would have seen it immediately but Marc does not. He is no different in his criticisms of Pat Robertson from any of Robertson's adversaries, including Fidel Castro, who, when informed that Robertson had called for Chávez's assassination, demurred: "That is a crime so great that only God could punish it." Odd, Castro never before deferred to God when it came to punishing his enemies. In Castro's mind, Castro's own punishments fall short of what Robertson would deserve if he derailed Castro's legacy as embodied in Hugo Chávez.

Yet Masferrer has the nerve to accuse Robertson, whose ministry has fed hundreds of millions of the world's hungry, and, indeed, would have fed the entire Cuban people if Castro had allowed it, of being a religious hypocrite "claiming to speak for God, who[m] he claims is not a loving, compassionate God, but a God who holds grudges and delivers payback." Guess what, Marc? That's what God does. He hold grudges and He delivers payback. In Him resides our only hope that evildoers like Castro will receive their just deserts in the end.

I don't care that Robertson is more pro-semitic than the Jews themselves. I don't care that he supports creationism. I don't care that he believes that God punishes those like Ariel Sharon who deviate from what Robertson sees as God's divine plan for Israel. I certainly don't care that he called for the assassination of Hugo Chávez (which is the most Biblical thing Robertson ever said as anybody who has ever read the Bible knows).

What matters to me — the only thing that matters to me and the only thing that should matter to Masferrer — is that Pat Robertson stands and has always stood with the Cuban people. I would never throw an ally to the wolves because he differs from me on trifles. Of course, if Robertson ever deviated one iota from his position on Cuba, I should have no hesitancy in attacking him because of it, but I would never attack him for his religious convictions, not because I necessarily share them but because these are not germane to me. Cuba is what matters, Marc. Nothing else.

All Are Welcomed In My House

It is a source of infinite pleasure to me that this site is visited by all my adversaries in the Cuban-American blogging "community" not once but 4 or 5 times a day. Even when I have quit lecturing them in their precincts they still feel the compulsion to come to my house to learn what I think about them. And they stay from 15 minutes to 3.5 hours perusing the scant offerings of this new blog — reading and re-reading what I have written perhaps because they cannot easily digest such concentrated fare.

They are all welcome, of course. Even Val and Henry (especially Val and Henry). All men are free to expand their education and should.

Linked Today, Unlinked Tomorrow

I suppose that Marc R. Masferrer of Uncommon Sense (but not in this instance) must have received one of those "You have betrayed me, buddy" e-mails from Val Prieto when Marc graciously (and unbeknownst to me) added the Review of Cuban-American Blogs to his blogroll. I had warned him to pay me no attention lest he bring upon his head the mighty wrath of the self-styled "Father of Cuban-American Bloggers." Marc insisted nonetheless on doing so and the subsequent rebuke and capitulation were not unexpected.

Here for the curious is a cache of Marc's blog showing that he briefly linked to the Review of Cuban-American Blogs before being "re-educated:"

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:_VjNmWdeCmMJ:marcmasferrer.typepad.com/uncommon_sense/2007/03/cuban_journalis.html+%22review+of+cuban-american+blogs%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

An Easter Wish

Pascua de Resurrección, the Feast of the Resurrection, man's triumph over death and the forces of evil, achieved through Christ's death and the temporal triumph of those forces, is one of those eternal mysteries of the faith, better believed than understood. Therein lies perhaps the greatest achievement of Catholic cosmology: the belief that those who are murdered for their faith, Christ Himself or his apostles in all ages, are the real winners and those who nailed them to crosses, kindled their pyres, frayed and stoned them are the losers. The Catholic Church is the church of martyrs, martyrdom itself being the highest expression of the faith. Defeat as victory; death as life; earthly injustice as the prelude to Divine Providence.

For the last 48 years no people no earth have suffered a greater martyrdom than the people of Cuba. Indeed, throughout our history, the just among us in all generations have fallen prey to the forces of darkness, including our own secular Christ, José Martí, who said that he would be nailed to a cross if it won our people their (earthly) freedom.

So why, if no people have paid a greater price in blood and suffering, have the Cuban people remained in slavery for 5 decades, with no end in sight to their travails? Is this some sign of divine grace? Are we the new Israelites, God's chosen people, chosen, like the Jews, to endure hecatombs and holocausts in time immemorial because we are especially favored by the Father? I hope not. And that is my Easter wish.

Groundswell of Support for Posada Carriles at Babalú — Dignity Carries the Day

Three months ago I received an e-mail from someone at Babalú (not Ziva) inquiring whether I thought Luís Posada Carriles was "guilty." Of course, I left the e-mail unanswered (which is something I never do). What self-respecting Cuban would ask such a question? Guilty of what? Loving his country? Defending his country? Sacrificing everything for his country's freedom? When Cuba is finally free, it is to Posada and men like Posada that statues will be raised and justly so; for they are the "men of marble" of whom Martí dreamt.

There are no lost causes, only lost men. This is a truth that Posada understands in the marrow of his bones. The cause of Cuba Libre has been Posada's cause all his life. When others became disillusioned by failure and betrayal (the betrayal having usually been the cause of the failure) and retired from the active struggle against Castro, Posada remained steadfast to the idealism of his youth. Neither the persecution of his (our) enemies nor the indifference of other Cuban exiles, not even being imprisoned unjustly and illegally by three countries or shot in the face by Castro's agents, has made Posada waver for a minute in his determination to continue fighting for our country. Such determination is ennobling in young men but sublime in old men. It is the spirit of the patriarchs and apostles, the men who mattered the most even when it seemed to most that they didn't matter at all.

Posada's only mistake was to place his trust in this country, and his mistake is not unique. As an anti-Communist freedom fighter, Posada served the interests of the U.S. during the Cold War and received its help and protection. When the Cold War ended, he was cast aside and vilified by those who had been his allies of convenience; but, undaunted, Posada carried on the fight, virtually alone but unbroken.

The much-acquitted Posada Carriles is now being held on charges that he entered the U.S. "illegally" and lied about it to federal authorities. That is to say, the U.S. government, which allows millions of migrants to cross the Mexican border every year illegally without prosecuting them, is instead aiming its guns at a man who is entitled by law to U.S. citizenship on the basis of his service in Vietnam and a hundred other places. Besides, under the barbarous "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" interpretation of the Cuban Adjustment Act (1966), any Cuban who simply sets foot in the U.S. is granted automatic asylum and the right to apply for citizenship in 2 years. Why is Posada the exception? Because Communists label him a "terrorist?" How many times must he be acquitted for that label to disappear? The most telling proof of Posada's innocence is that the U.S. didn't even try to have him indicted for complicity in any terrorist acts. The evidence just isn't there.

But returning to Babalú again, which, as we have documented here, supports noble causes only if it believes that supporting them will not bring "discredit" to the "community," preferring to conserve whatever political capital it may have for the Estefans and other heroes of capitalism.

The 78-year old man who has fought for Cuba longer than the Estefans have been alive and the 4-year old girl who is threatened with Elián's fate do not concern the Val Prietos and Henry Gómezes of our "community." Eager always, as they should be, to defend the victims of Castro in Cuba, they are just as loathe to say one word in support of those who are persecuted in our own midst for the same cause.

Today, Ziva, whom I have called in the past "the moral conscience of Babalú," proves me right yet again with her "Breaking News" post on Texas Judge Kathleen Cardone's order to grant Posada Carriles bail. Although Ziva does not comment on the judge's decision herself or say anything personally about Posada in her post, the very fact that she even dared to reproduce partially and link the story is significant because it allowed Babalú's readers to comment on the case, from which many assimilationist Cuban exiles can't run fast enough.

I do not know how long it will be before Val deletes the entire thread for fear that the candid opinions expressed there will be attributed to him and the whole "community." The comments do in fact reveal the real feelings of cubanos dignos, of which there is no paucity among Babalú's readers and comment writers:


This is the best news I have heard in so long! Da Roof! Da Roof! Da Roof is on Fire! We dont need no water let da mother F**ker burn (Fidelismo) ! YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We win this one ya'll.
Posted by: Guajiro_de_Broward at April 6, 2007 07:29 PM

Great news indeed! Though the MSM is spewing out half truths regarding the bombing of the airplane.
He was tried twice in Venezuela, ( in military & civil court) BOTH TIMES ACQUITTED. Again the MSM IGNORES ALL THE FACTS AND SPINS THE STORY TO FIT THEIR AGENDA.
Posted by: Jewbana at April 6, 2007 08:02 PM

Yipeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!
Texas justice.
Posted by: Gigi at April 6, 2007 09:49 PM

Fidel se debe haber cagado con esta noticia. Fifo debe estar super furioso. Saquen la billetera que el gran pintor cubano comenzara a coger ordenes nuevas pronto , muy pronto. [Fidel probably soiled himself when he heard the news. Fifo should be super furious. Take out your checkbooks because the great Cuban painter will be taking new orders soon, very soon].
Posted by: Abajofidel at April 6, 2007 10:05 PM

The MSM never mentions that Fidel Castro's 26 of July Movement carried out the first international airline hijacking of a commercial plane in Nov. 1958. The plane crashed into Nipe Bay killing most of those aboard, including women and children. Here is the article and photos
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/terrorism/tragedia_nipe.pdf
Let's not forget the hundreds of bombs that Castro's underlings set off in Cuba during the revolution.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba-terrorism.htm
Posted by: delacova at April 6, 2007 10:28 PM

ATT Abajofidel: fidel can't shit on anything except into a colostomy bag that he drags around with quite a stink...pew!!!
Posted by: Doorgunner at April 7, 2007 11:06 AM

How can a Cuban, under current law - even wet foot/dry foot, be in the United States illegally? I thought that as long as you got here, it didn't matter how - raft, Pedro Pan flight, swim the Rio Grande, get a gig with Dizzy Gillespie's UN big band, just get here.
Posted by: Paxety at April 7, 2007 11:25 AM

The problem is that he left Cuba back in the day and became a citizen of Venezuela. That is where the problem lies. But he worked hard for the US in the CIA and there are exceptions for those who served in the Military to get Naturalization.

Why can't Posada get it like that? I will tell you why.....politics with our wimpy president who does not have the Ronald Reagan balls to stand up to those elements of the evil empire within and without the US.
Posted by: Guajiro_de_Broward at April 7, 2007 01:42 PM

Could he renounce his Venezuelan citizenship? Or does that require he go to the Venezuelan embassy and then technically be "in Venezuela" and get arrested?
Posted by: daniel_in_garanhuns at April 7, 2007 03:07 PM

UPDATE: I urge you to read killcastro's compelling comment on this post, which forthrightly tackles the question, "What if Posada did do it?"

For 48 years, 99% of the casualties have been on our side but the media's attention has been focused 99% of the time on the 1-percent of casualties that the enemy has sustained in this unequal war where their side is always given the benefit of the doubt and our side is pronounced guilty even when proven innocent.

Drums Are Beating at Babalú

Gods of the Congo,
Mumbo-jumbo will hoo-doo you,
Mumbo-jumbo will hoo-doo you,
Mumbo-jumbo will hoo-doo you.

Vachel Lindsay (1871-1939)


The readership of Babalú appears to have had enough of Val Prieto and Henry Gómez's attempts to limit speech there by enforcing bans on what can be discussed or not, and who can be criticized or not in their domain. These strictures have always been in place at Babalú to one extent or another, but lately Val and Henry have been particularly draconian in their application, although not very consistent. Consistency, however, would not be a virtue either.

Since Val announced last week that no criticism of the Estefans would be brooked on his blog upon penalty of summary expulsion, the unwillingness of his subjects to tolerate his dictates in that respect or any respect has increased proportionally both in degree and frequency. Indeed, when Henry, always a step behind Val in matters draconian, attempted to extend this edict to the Babalú Radio Hour by declaring it "Estefan-Free Radio," the much put-upon denizens of Val's blog revolted under the imposition of yet another yoke on free expression. Towards Henry, at least, they did not show their usual obeisance to the great leader; on the contrary, they were more than a little miffed.

Pototo offered the first dissent:


Henry,
Would not discussing santanagate cause new developments and the not discussing do just the opposite? Should we not discuss castro and Cuba until new developments arise? Just an honest question.
Posted by: pototo at April 4, 2007 08:13 AM


What pototo means, I think, is that discussing santanagate might bring to light new developments, whereas not discussing it would have the opposite effect of burying it. What he fails to see is that burying it is Val and Henry's object. Pototo then asks a cogent rhetorical question, which bears repeating: "Should we not discuss castro and Cuba until new developments arise?" Indeed, the predations of a tyrant do not require "timeliness" for discussion, because they are forever an open question, which will not be resolved or cease to be topical until justice has been done, and perhaps not even then.

Paxety next joins the discussion with a humorous but pointed barb which references Henry's other great blogging passion, sports:


pototo,
It means Henry will be discussing the rumors Billy Donovan is leaving Florida to coach Kentucky or the Heat, whether the health problems of Corey Brewer's father will force him to go to the NBA, whether Tito Horford will talk Al into staying for his senior year, and what is the strange relationship between Joakim Noah and his supermodel mother. And maybe a word or two will slip in on how the Marlins are 2-0 for the first time in history. You know, the important stuff.
Posted by: Paxety at April 4, 2007 08:34 AM


Ouch! That's known in sports jargon as a technical.

Pototo comes up with a pretty good rejoinder:


Oh my mistake. So it's [now] the Cuban American Sports Fan Radio Hour. What if we said that the Estefans were buying into a sports franchise?
Posted by: pototo at April 4, 2007 09:09 AM


Even George L. Moneo, Babalú's resident dry wit and the smartest among its contributors, can't help having some good fun at brother Henry's expense:


It's going to be renamed the "Over-Gloating Gators Hour"...
Posted by: George L. Moneo at April 4, 2007 09:51 AM


Henry Gomez now has an important decision to make. Is he going to take all this criticism seriously or brush it off as good-natured ribbing? Henry is thinking. Henry is thinking. Henry is thinking. Alright, he's ready now. The long-awaited "inspiration" has come to him (as Henry confessed recently, he must first be "inspired" before he can write):


Coño como joden.

We have a format to the show:

News Items
Guest (if any)
Musical interlude
Listener Calls
Desahogo

Last week we threw the format out and talked about Santanagate for an entire hour. We took 30 minutes of calls on it.

Now, Val and I always feel that the hour goes by real quick, so to spend more time on this is to me a waste of our precious few minutes. Besides I don't have anything else to say until something changes and I'm pretty sure Val doesn't either. So it would just be so the callers could say something. Of course the callers have every opportunity to say something right here on the blog where it will be permanently stored.

Not only that, I just confirmation on a guest for tonight and don't want to cheat him.

Ahora dejen de joder.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at April 4, 2007 09:54 AM


The Cuban colloquialisms which Henry uses to deflate the situation don't quite do the trick, especially since he reinforces the original restriction: Val and Henry have nothing more to say on estefangate (unity in silence), so nobody else will be allowed to say anything about it on "Estefan-Free Radio." But he does offer the dissenters a bone: they can leave their remarks on the superannuated threads devoted to the Estefans which have now "gone cold" under the threat of censorship and expulsion. No censorship is necessary there anymore. Comment to your heart's desire in the Babalú morgue. Finally, he throws out an enticing hint about the scheduled guest on the Babalu Radio Hour this week. No doubt someone whom they recruited at the last moment and hope will override the commotion about the Estefans.


George Moneo, again, is still having fun with Henry, which is not very difficult to do:


Al Gore? Bill Clinton?
Posted by: George L. Moneo at April 4, 2007 10:08 AM


Pototo then offers a needed lesson in Spanish semantics to Henry:


no es joder es chivar
Posted by: pototo at April 4, 2007 10:14 AM


Robert, another Babalú editor, seeing that Henry is in trouble, comes to his rescue with a timely diversion and love pledge:


Over-Gloating? Gators? Isn't that redundant?

We still love ya Henry!
Posted by: Robert at April 4, 2007 10:19 AM


Well, the writing is on the wall (and in crayon). The next posts are devoted to sports. Henry, thinking he's home safe, even takes up his bullhorn:


What can I say except:

It's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!

It's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!

It's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!

It's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!

It's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!

It's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at April 4, 2007 10:36 AM


And even Val makes a cameo, insinuating what a wild and crazy guy Henry is:


Oh man. It's gonna be a long day...
Posted by: Val Prieto at April 4, 2007 10:45 AM


More sports inanities. Even pototo joins in with a crack about some guy named Noah (presumably on the Gator's team), whom he observes "looks like a girl" (i.e. is uncomfortably good-looking for pototo's taste).


And again Henry chimes in:

I said it's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!

It's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!

it's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!

it's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!

it's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!

it's great to be a FLORIDA GATOR!
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at April 4, 2007 11:03 AM


Val Prieto again follows Henry, this time with homophobic remarks about this guy named Noah wearing green slippers. (The homophobic remarks nicely balance the earlier homoerotic remarks).

After all the shenanigans (and I have spared you most of it), José Aguirre attempts to return the conversation for a minute to its original focus — estefangate and Babalú's "Estefan-Free Radio:


I agree with Pototo that discussion of the E$tefan$' Santana scandal should NOT be curtailed. Our voices could still have an actual positive impact on how the E$tefan$ move forward on this matter.

Oh, and GO GATORS!!!
Posted by: Jose Aguirre at April 4, 2007 11:18 AM


Henry, who has obviously been getting "inspired" even as he was cheerleading, sees the error of his ways and relents. He will no longer continue his efforts to stem the tide of estefangate with "Estefan-Free Radio," as he dubbed it in his post (before deleting that reference when I ridiculed it on the Review of Cuban-Americans blogs). The new conciliatory Henry tells José:


If you call in and want to talk about it, fine I won't have anything to add to the conversation. But if you call in and talk about the campaign to raise the profile of Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet I'll have a lot to say.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at April 4, 2007 11:26 AM


Oh yes, Henry's ill-fated campaign to draft the imprisoned Dr. Biscet to run against Fidel Castro in Cuba's next presidential "elections" in 2008, which Biscet's wife had to preempt before Henry got the man killed. Oh yeah, "Go Gators"...

At least Henry can't hurt Noah by proposing him for president.

"Babaloo.com"

"Babaloo.com" (ha!) (ha!) (ha!)

It's an insider joke. You had to have been there, and being there was no picnic. But it had its small rewards.

Alright, I won't tease you anymore. That's how Ninoska spelt the name of Val Prieto's blog on her show on Radio Mambí yesterday. Val corrected her and she in turn corrected him, pointing out that "babaloo" is how "babalú" is spelt in English. This tell us two things: 1). Ninoska has never visited Val's blog and 2). Americans who may want to access Babalú blog are going to be stumped despite their best efforts because they can't spell in Spanish.

Ninoska's "babaloo" moment was the highlight of the show.

Overall it was a lackluster performance which succeeded only in avoiding all mention of the Estefans; but that, of course, was the heartfelt object of both the interviewer and the interviewed. After all, the Estefans could buy Radio Mambí tomorrow and become Ninoska's boss, or buy Val for life with a copy of 90 Millas autographed by all the performers on the album. It would serve him right.

Babalú Inaugurates "Estefan-Free Radio"

We understand from the latest announcement (which is bound to be revised or deleted at any moment) that the Babalú Radio Hour has now become Estefan-Free Radio. [I kid you not; this is what they actually called it). This development will no doubt be hailed by pop-music lovers everywhere who have long hoped for Estefan-Free Radio. Babalú also announced that it's going to "cover anything except Santanagate and only because [they've] written literally thousands of words on the matter." This is somewhat akin to the Nixon White House having proclaimed at the height of Watergate that it would not address the matter because there were already thousands of reels of tape that pertained to it.

We also take exception to its description of recent events involving the Estefans as "Santanagate," which is a two-year old scandal involving Carlos Santana's poor choice of wardrobe at the 2005 Oscars. What we have here, however, is not Santanagate, but Estefangate. But it can hardly surprise anyone that Val Prieto would not permit the word "gate" (redolent of scandal) to be attached to the august name of Estefan. The Estefans, after all, have fought longer and better for Cuba's freedom than the rest of us, according to Val Prieto. In any case, the tribute of his silence is certainly preferable to the spectacle of his adulation.


UPDATE: Although the subject is off-limits on Babalú's Estefan-Free Radio, Val has consented to discuss the Estefan affaire on Mambí Radio's "Ninoska" Show" at 3:00 pm. This is what Val lives for and his big chance to rectify all his past mistakes on Estefangate. Will Val avail himself of it? Of course not. The Estefans might be listening (fat chance!). In any case, I'll listen and report if anything worth mentioning is said there. Perhaps I might even call the show if the spirit moves me.

UPDATE 2: Just as I predicted, the Babalú post announcing the inauguration of Estefan-Free Radio has been deleted. I am surprised to see that I exert more influence over them now than I ever did when I opined there.

The RCAB Telephone Hour — Tonight and Every Tuesday (or Wednesday, as the case may be)

Because we copy no one and will be excelled by no one, we have decided to establish as a special service to our blog community, the most democratic experiment ever attempted in the history of blogging, when you, my reader, may communicate with me directly and leave your message on the Review of Cuban-American Blogs TELEPHONE HOUR.

Hosted (modestly) by your Obedient Servant.

Details to follow.

Stay Tuned.

The floor is yours (just don't get it dirty).

(And, yes, it will be my real telephone).

The Disappearing "I'M A COCKSUCKER, DON'T YA KNOW" Post on Babalú

Val must have worked on it all week-end. It was certainly the lengthiest post in Babalú history. It took him more than 1200 words to explain that he is not a "cocksucker." I was just about to link it to my blog when Val pulled it down without explanation and without leaving a trace. It was up long enough, however, for several readers to leave their drop of venom for me, too. Duly noted. I don't know if he's re-writing the post or if someone convinced him to pull it down for good as it served merely to compound embarrassment upon embarrassment. In his long and ridiculous explanation, Val concealed all the essential facts of this case as set forth here. He proved that he is very afraid of my words because he didn't quote or link to the "offending" critique. But Val is even more afraid of his own words than of mine.

Val Prieto Visits

Manuel,

You know, it's a shame that your very first blog post on your brand spanking new blog is not only a personal attack on me, a fellow Cuban-American and the person that has been blogging about the realities of Cuba the longest, but is a perfect example of the problem the Cuban-American community has had for almost fifty years: attacking their own rabidly, injustfiably and publicly for simply having a differing opinion - EVEN IF SAID ATTACK-EE IS ON THE VERY SAME SIDE AS THE ATTACKER.

You are no doubt a learned person, very intelligent (albeit somewhat vain) with much more knowledge than I about most subjects vis-a-vis Cuba, yet, if this first post is any indication - and to me it certainly is - then you are an embarrassment to the Cuban-American community whose actions in this post, justify every single word on the very same post of mine you criticize.

Proof's in the pudding, as they say.



Val:

Welcome to my blog, Val. I won't thank you for your good wishes because none were proffered; but your presence here, at least, and your generally conciliatory tone, so out of character, are unexpected and also welcome.

Yes, we are on the same side, but this does not require that we march in lockstep. In fact, though your goals are worthy in the main, your methods are not always so.

I did not pick this fight with you; it is you who forced it upon me. All I did was respond to your challenge, which I could hardly leave unanswered. If anything it is you who pushed me against a wall and left me no other alternative than to speak the truth which I could only hint at on your blog without falling prey to censorship or ouster.

I appreciate the words you say here about me being a learned person, knowing more than you about Cuba, etc., but your words of praise do not match your actions, which tell me that you have absolutely no respect for me or what I represent. Indeed, your actions show unconcealed disdain and hostility. I do not know the basis of this gratuitous rancor and shall not attribute it to the obvious causes. I know only its effects.

In one moment, in fact, in one minute, to be precise, you made me understand how unwanted I was on your blog and the depths of your almost reflexive resentment of me.

You may be sure, however, that if you attack my positions here or even my character (which I never did to you on Babalú), I shall placidly allow you to have your say and only then proceed to have mine. I will never censor you or boot you from your blog, as you did to me without explanation or warning, simply to show that you could and would do it, even to me. "It is useful to hang an admiral now and then; it encourages the others."

Yes, it is shameful that you should do something like that to one of your own; and stupid, too, because you were not actually "hanging" me but rather setting me free.

Although that was not your intent, I thank you nonetheless.


Val Prieto said...

I suppose that "cocksucker" post was a satire, then, no Manuel?


Val:

First of all, it was not the "cocksucker post," but the cocksucking post. If I had called you a "cocksucker" it would mean that you were a cocksucker, had always been a cocksucker and would always be a cocksucker. But that was not what I meant or what I said. Your defense of the Estefans was, however, the biggest cocksucking in the history of Cuban-American blogs. No one, I think, will disagree with that assessment. Not even you. I am sure, in fact, that your embarrassing pledge of allegiance to the Estefans now embarrasses even you. Why else would you yourself admit that you had "to eat crow?" Better eat crow than what you were eating.

As for my deconstruction of your remarks, there were elements of satire in it, among other things. Your loyalty oath to the Estefans certainly lent itself to satire, among other things.

Killcastro Welcomes Us to the Blogosphere

Tellechea Takes Up Blogging (from Killcastro Blog, March 31, 2007)

Well, we all have seen Mr. Manuel Tellechea’s work on a number of blogs. The gentleman has a knack for pissing people off, and I think that a mind THAT sharp has no self-editing switch. Whatever he is thinking winds up on the post. Sometimes it is frustrating; sometimes down right profound and VERY often piss on your pants FUNNY!

I have had my encounters with Mr T. and I must say I have gotten a couple of good punches to the gut, but NEVER a low blow which is a hell of a lot more than I can say about a lot of people. I guess your IQ goes in direct proportion to your need to make an ass outta yourself and Mr. T's command of the language and insightful observations allows him the luxury to argue as a gentleman should. I think this is the first time in my life I am actually praising someone I have confronted in arguments, but hey one grows, one learns and if you do not see class when it is staring you right in the face, then mommy and daddy just did a bad job of raising ya!

Today I got news he has followed a LOT of people's advise and opened up his own blog where he can discourse to his hearts delight BUT.. His blog has an interesting twist.. he will rate the honesty, quality and patriotism of all CUBAN-AMERICAN blogs! (ay-ay-ay LOOSY as Desi would say!)

The name of the blog will be the "Review of Cuban-American Blogs."

Now go, and wear an asbestos suit!

It is gonna be a HOT and bumpy ride! (Sorry Ms. Davis)



killcastro and charlie:

Already I have said this to you privately, but I wish to thank-you publicly as well for the spontaneous support and generous advice that you have both offered me in setting out on this new course. From others I have received silence or questions about my motives mixed in with tepid good-wishes which under another light would seem tepid ill-wishes as well; but from both of you came only the truest proofs of genuine friendship and fraternity, which touch my heart and for which I scarcely know how to repay you. I never wanted my own blog, though I cannot remember how many times I have been told that I should have one (to divert my attention from other Cuban-American blogs, if nothing else). The Review of Cuban American Blogs is the compromise between what I want and what everybody else (almost) wants for me. I have my own blog at last(satisfying the desires of others) but I will still do there what I think I do best, challenge and upset the minor idols, and satisfy myself as well.