Mike Huckabee: "Suffer the Little Children to Suffer" (If Their Parents Are Illegal Immigrants)

Obese men who lose a lot of weight are the male equivalent of women with PMS. The hormones are raging wildly in them as in adolescents and trying to adjust to new metabolical realities. Since I do not believe that any politician can be so amateurish as to flip-flop twice, three times and even four times on the same issue as Mike Huckabee has on immigration, I can only assume that there are forces driving such behavior which are outside his control or even his recognition. The grand kleegel of the Minutemen (or whatever he's called) has announced that Huckabee, in a private interview with him, reaffirmed his support for a constitutional amendment that would strip the children of illegal immigrants of their U.S. citizenship.

Last Sunday, at a Fox News Forum in New Hampshire, he took the position that he didn't want to punish children for the actions of their parents. Yes, Huckabee wants to deport all illegal immigrants within 120 days, which would break up millions of families (note how these "Family-First" conservatives don't give a damn about families if they are not the right kind of families); but he never insinuated that he wanted also to target specifically the children for deportation by stripping them of their U.S. citizenship. His hope, as expressed then, was that the parents would take their children back to Mexico with them because "like most immigrants they are family-loving people."

QUESTION: Governor Huckabee, at an earlier debate, you had a memorable exchange with Governor Romney about your plan that would have allowed the children of illegals in-state tuition to college. And, at the time, you said we shouldn’t punish children from the actions of their parents.

On the other hand, shortly after that, you came out with a very tough immigration plan, which mandates that all illegals must leave the country and return to their home within 120 days if they want to become legals. Aren’t you in effect, in that plan, punishing those very children that you said you didn’t want to punish?

HUCKABEE: Not at all, because as long as those children are here and people question their authenticity for being here, they live in the shadows. They live hiding. No person living in the United States of America, Chris, ought to live in the shadows, ought to live in fear, ought to hide. The beauty of this country is we live with our heads up. We live with dignity, we live with pride, we live with honor, and as long as people are living illegally, they can’t.

And I know I’m going to be questioned, do I still stand by that idea that we treat the children differently, who didn’t commit a crime? And let me just be very clear, yes, I do stand beside that, because I don’t think you punish a child for what a parent did.

FOLLOW-UP: If you have the child of an illegal immigrant and he is in high school in Little Rock, and now under the Huckabee – President Huckabee’s plan, he and his family all have to move back to Mexico, aren’t you punishing that kid? He’s a sophomore in high school and now he’s been dragged out of Little Rock, and he’s living in Tijuana.

HUCKABEE: I guess his parents could leave him there if he’s a senior in high school, but I think most families, particularly if you understand about most of the immigrant families, they’re a family-loving people. These are not people that want to split their families up, they want to keep their families together.

Yes, they do. They want to keep their families together and Huckabee wants to split them up. The "leave the country now and we'll re-admit you later" ruse is an insult to everybody's intelligence. If he really intended to re-admit them he would not compel them to leave in the first place and cause a national convulsion that would be repeated when they supposedly returned. He has shown his hand with his proposal for a constitutional amendment that would denaturalize the children of illegal immigrants. You see, he doesn't want their U.S.-born children to be able to return to the U.S. as adults either.

Barack Obama: The Future Is the Past

Despite her maternal solicitude for him, Oprah Winfrey is not Barack Obama's mama. A recent PBS documentary on genomes revealed that Oprah's lineage is 100% African, which is almost unheard of in this country. No white man ever defiled her black ancestors. She has that much in common with Barack Obama, who is the product of a biracial union. His late mother was from Kansas (like Dorothy) and his father from Kenya. Barack is descended on his mother's side from the family of Jefferson Davis, president of the CSA. His father's family were never slaves, though as Muslims (or philomuslims) they may have supplied the slavers. Obama Sr. resided in the U.S. long enough to acquire a doctorate from Harvard and beget Obama Jr. Barack Obama, therefore, is a first generation African-American. His "middle passage" consisted of relocating from Honolulu to Chicago via Jakarta. If reparations were ever paid to African-Americans, he wouldn't be on the receiving end. In fact, with his ties to Jefferson Davis, he might well be on the dispersing end, although. of course, he won't be dispensing his own money.

Barack(a) Hussein Obama's parents met at the University of Honolulu and were married shortly thereafter. It was a bigamous marriage because Obama's father never divorced his first wife in Kenya. His mother, named Stanley after her father — who had always wanted a son — was an early hippie and militant atheist. She may also have been a communist, though her friends from high school and college avoid that word, preferring instead "contrarian," "iconoclast," "off-center," "not standard issue," "liberal" and "fellow traveller" (the last probably being the most accurate description). Barack's father was a foreign exchange student from Kenya, who had dreams of becoming the next Jomo Kenyatta (he would have been better off studying at Moscow U. if that was his goal and so would we). The marriage of Barack's parents was opposed by both their families, but more stridently by his Kenyan relations than by Jefferson Davis' heirs. The patriarch of the Obama clan wrote to Stanley's parents accusing her of being a harridan who wanted to destroy his son's future prospects in Kenya. Although Obama Sr. decamped without his wife or son to Harvard and thence to Kenya, the "taint" of intermarriage (to a white, an American and a non-Muslim) did indeed make Obama Sr. a pariah at home. Many years later, a friend from his college days, Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D-Hw), visited Obama pere there and noted that he had become an alcoholic who talked only about his missed opportunities and never even asked about his ex-wife or son.

Barack was raised by his mother and maternal grandparents in Hawaii. He was in the fifth grade before he saw another black man. It was his father. He saw him at an airport stopover and never again. His mother, who had a penchant for exotic men, next married another foreign exchange student, this one an Indonesian Muslim named Lolo Soetoro, who was the father of Obama's half-sister Maya. Stanley femme followed her new husband to Jakarta, where Obama, now known as "Barry Soetoro," attended first a Catholic and then a Muslim school. He was listed as a Muslim on the registration form of the Strada Asisia Catholic School. He later transferred to Menteng School #1, ostensibly a "public school" but one with a mosque in its courtyard. Some have described it as a fundamentalist Islamic madrassa, but perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it taught the official religion like all state schools in Indonesia. "Barry" also accompanied his stepfather to mosque for Friday prayers. Barack once denied all this, but now merely claims never to have followed the Muslim religion. In his autobiography, he wrote that his father had been raised a Muslim but became a "confirmed atheist" like his mother. He cited his mother's atheism to insinuate that she would not have approved of a religious upbringing and also claimed that his stepfather was "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful" and supposedly incorporated elements of ancient animism (spirit worship) and Hinduism into his practice of Islam. It may have been Obama, however, who found it convenient to dilute his late stepfather's observance of Islamic practices with tales of his eating snakes "for their power" and other enormities. All this is a moot point: according to Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, you are a Muslim; if you were born a Muslim, you will always be a Muslim. Of course, it would be the worst kind of religious bigotry to suggest that being a Muslim is inherently evil or outside the pale of civilization. This, however, is exactly what Obama suggests every time that he denies his religious upbringing or disassociates himself from the Muslim faith of his youth. At his madrassa nearly 40 years ago he was not taught to be a suicide bomber. That much should be obvious. But Obama won't credit his countrymen with enough sense to see that. Maybe he's right not to credit them.

"Barry" attended high school at an elite prep in Hawaii, whose students included the descendents of the Doles of canned pineapple fame. At school, he was on the basketball team and was known as "Barry O'Bomber," not because he was a Muslim suicide terrorist but because of his wicked long shots. His best friend and confidante was an older boy named Keith Kakugawa, who was also of mixed ancestry (Japanese/African). He joked in his autobiography that between them they comprised the only black at their high school. This friend would resurface 30 years later as a convicted cocaine dealer who allegedly attempted to blackmail Obama with damaging information from their youth. Since Obama has admitted his own alcohol and drug abuse in high school, it would really not be much of a stretch to suppose what it is that his friend has on him. No one confesses to have been a cokehead in high school unless he was actually much more than that.

At college, where he proudly proclaims he took a class on international relations, which comprises his sole expertise in that area, Obama was a mediocre student, much like George Bush, and, by his own admission, did not make the best of his educational opportunities but did have a good time. He continued his laid back approach in the Senate, where he officiously avoided taking a stand on any controversial issue or casting a vote that would define him as anything in particular. Obama has missed nearly 40% of votes in the Senate and has the worst record of any Democrat. The few times that he did deign to vote were enough to class him with the senate's most backward-looking liberals. It doesn't really seem that he has many principles which he is willing to display (much less defend) and his mantra of "change" conceals the fact that he is not prone to change himself. Perhaps the "change" he means is not doctrinal or institutional as much as pigmentational. Electing a president because he is black (or the closest electable alternative) is just as reprehensible as denying a qualified candidate the presidency because he is black. Hopefully Americans will not make either mistake.

Cuban-American Voters: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Xenophobia is the opium of the Republican Party, whose big tent shelters not only the traditional country club types but also the old Wallace Democrats who were "reconstructed" in the 1980s. Nativism affords them all a cover for their racism. You see, it's not the swarthy color that they find objectionable, not the inherent inferiority which they assume in foreigners from south of the border, but, rather, their "illegality," or, at worst, their "alienness" (i.e. presumed unassimilability) which offends them. They are not really "racists," they will tell you, because they are all into the Mexican hat dance, tequila and mariachis if in situ. It is only when they leave their situ that Republican sensibilities are aroused by their presence among them on U.S. soil (at least since 1848). That their ancestors lived in the Southwest for 30,000 years before the first blue eyes laid eyes upon that land is immaterial. There is no "Law of Return" for Mexicans, nor casino monopolies to compensate them for the biggest land-grab in history. The descendents of the victors in the war that Abraham Lincoln called "the most unjust in history" actually have the presumption to look on Mexican migrants as interlopers, and though they use them as little better than slaves, they nonetheless feel themselves ill-used by them. Perhaps the Mexicans consume too much water or breath too much air. Since the "Contract on America" became law in 1996 both illegal and legal immigrants have been excluded from the social contract, though still expected to pay the taxes that underwrite social security and unemployment benefits for native workers in this country. Because they are barred from claiming benefits their contributions are really contributions, an outright gift from the neediest in this country to the most affluent. This $60 billion slush fund is used to pay welfare to wealthy seniors and the unemployed by choice, and reduces, correspondingly, the tax burden on all Americans. Everybody eats in this country from the sweat of the Mexicans' brow. Americans put cheap produce on their tables thanks to them; they can afford macmansions because of them; everything is cheaper and more accessible to everybody else because of their undercompensated labor. Without them the quality of life for most Americans would plummet catastrophically. At least the Southern slaveholders knew what they owed their slaves and even fought a civil war where they risked everything rather than lose the source of their prosperity and happiness. The Republicans refuse even to acknowledge that they benefit by America's modern version of chattel slavery. Their racism is ingrained, unreasoning, and, ultimately, detrimental to themselves, because it would "emancipate" them from an important source of their prosperity and well-being. It wouldn't be like lopping off one's own head, but certainly it would amount to losing a foot and limping forever.

I should like to believe that the Republican presidential candidates know the folly of nativism and that their xenophobic rhetoric is merely a sop to their constituents. That, of course, would make them hypocrites, rabblerousers and hatemongers; but at least not insane. The really insane ones, the true believers, like Gingrich and Tancredo, have already dropped out. The others are opportunists willing to jump on any juggernaut that will take them to the White House. Some may actually think that they will be be able to decamp once they reach their destination. I do not think so. They may not realize it but they have taken a blood oath, and if they don't abide by it their careers will be ended. Xenophobia is the oldest American political tradition, but not since the 1920s has it monopolized the political discourse as it is doing now. These "read my lips" promises about illegal immigration will be redeemed whatever the cost to this country and the cost will be very great indeed.

Under U.S. law there is no such thing as an "illegal" Cuban immigrant. The Cuban Adjustment (1966) does not recognize such a category of excludables. The formulators of the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy in effect improvised such a category to appease Castro and avoid another balsero crisis. Still, as was evident in Fred Thompson's "suitcase bomber" remark, Republicans see Cuban refugees as menacing foreigners rather than refugees from injustice. It would be foolish for Cuban-Americans to expect any special dispensations from them. The "Contract On America" of odious memory should have alerted Cuban exiles to that fact. Under its provisions more than 100,000 exiles were excluded from the social safety net because they were not U.S. citizens, though they had lived legally in this country and been taxpayers for 40 years. Faced with the prospect of spending the rest of their lives on the streets, tens of thousands of exiles were forced to become U.S. citizens in their 70s and 80s and the suicide rate for the elderly in South Florida climbed to record levels. Gracias, Newt.

Socio-economically, Cuban-Americans, who are older than other Hispanics, better educated and more prosperous, have more in common with Republicans than with Democrats. But Cubans have never voted their pocketbooks. The advantage which the Republicans enjoyed over the Democrats was that Cuban exiles perceived them as being more anti-Castro and anti-Communist. This was undoubtedly the case once. Whether it is still so is debatable. Most Republicans today couldn't care less about Cuba or Castro. They are either like Mitt Romney, who thinks that "Patria o Muerte" is the battle cry of anti-Castro Cubans; or like Mike Huckabee, who as governor of Arkansas publicly supported lifting the trade embargo, something which his predecessor, Bill Clinton, never did; or, worst of all, like Fred Thompson, who mistakes Cuban balseros for terrorists. (I don't know if I should even mention Libertarian Ron Paul, who has said that the "right" of Americans to travel to Cuba concerns him more than whether Cubans are free or no).

Democrats, of course, are as craven and opportunistic in their positions regarding Cuba as are their Republican counterparts, but that doesn't concern me because Cubans are not going to be voting for Democrats in 2008.

500th Post

This is the Review of Cuban-American Blogs' 500th post. I had not intended to mark this occasion in any special way. I am already preparing for our First Anniversary in March and did not wish to duplicate the content. However, in replying to a comment from Agustín in the previous thread, wherein he traced for the benefit of Anonymous the history of the RCAB — which he is certainly qualified to do having been a part of it from the beginning — I touched on many of the themes which I intended to expand upon later, and I decided that this exchange would do well for the 500th post.

agustín fariñas said:

Anonymous:

I am inclined to believe that it may have been a typo by Henry. It can happen to anyone at anytime.

When Manuel is inspired, he can write wonderful pieces about Cuban History, poetry, World History and many other subjects of interest to all. Sometimes, in my humble opinion, he dedicates more time than I wished he did, or I think Babalú deserves, posting about their flukes.

But, after all, it's his Blog and his undeserved expulsion from Babalú after commenting critically on the Gloria Eschefan affair still is fresh on his mind.

With the passing of time, Babalú had to retract and revise their position on the Estefans and Manuel's was vindicated.

There is a certain amount of intellectual jealousy between the Babalú crowd and Manuel, because he seems to get the best of them when they face him in arguments.

But look for older posts where Babalú was not the topic, and you will find remarkable pieces well written and worth your time.
1/06/2008 8:08 AM


Manuel A. Tellechea said:

Agustín:

I believe that Henry's axion was something in the nature of an intellectual "short-circuit." He knew what he wanted to say but somehow between the thinking and the writing the wires got crossed and the trite observation which he meant to utter was transformed into something Nietzschean (over-the-top Nietzschean). He corrected his mistake attributing it to the fact that he wrote "too fast." I would credit that explanation but modify it somewhat to read: He thinks too slowly and writes too fast.

You are on point as to the history of my relations with Babalú. When Val booted me from Babalú for expressing much milder criticism of the Estefans than is allowed today, he surely did not know what the fallout would be. It dawned on him within 20 minutes of the expulsion, when he attempted, unsuccessfully, to take it back. It was too late, of course. It was not the expulsion that angered me per se but the disdain which it demonstrated when gratitude was what I deserved of him. It is no coincidence, either, that only a day before Val had invited me to write a post for Babalú and I had declined. In the past I had overlooked deletions of my comments and even of entire posts where they must have thought I had gotten the better of them. But the expulsion, even if it lasted only 20 minutes, was more than I was willing to ignore. That was the genesis of the Review of Cuban-American Blogs. If not for Val's presumption I should still be commenting on Babalú, and trying, as best I could, despite their dirty tricks, to reform it from within. But the expulsion catapulted me to do something which I had always resisted though it had been suggested to me one hundred times — start my own blog. I think that in many cases this was suggested just to get rid of me. Val's approach, however, proved a more effective catalyst. He got rid of me and still got more of me than he had ever feared.

What is done impulsively is often regretted at leisure. Val has certainly had much time to regret his precipitous act. If he considered matters rightly, however, he would see this blog as the greatest service that anyone has ever performed on behalf of Babalú. He recently published a thank-you note to his colleagues and readers. My name should have been at the head of the list because no one has done more to reform and revive Babalú over the last year than have I. Everything that I have suggested to them they have officiously implemented, and, more importantly, whatever I have identified as absurd or detrimental they have abandoned with as much alacrity as their pride would allow. Most significantly, Val has entrusted Babalú to a new crop of co-editors who think exactly as I do on all topics relating to Cuba. How does Val "combat" Tellechea? He multiplies the Tellecheas. This strategy raised Val somewhat in my estimation and the more that he keeps his silence at Babalú the higher shall my consideration for him grow.

I once listed all the posts I have devoted to Val and Henry and the other Babalunians at RCAB. Altogether they amounted to less than 50, which is not even 10 percent of the 500 posts I have written to date. Their impact was great but not their number. I don't believe that I have ever shown any malice to Val or Henry. When they have done something praiseworthy, I have praised them. Their errors of thought and action I have condemned vigorously while avoiding all ad hominem attacks. I know that making them appear like fools time and time again might be construed by some as personal animus, but it is not. I have merely endeavored, like Goya, to present their true likeness. I was motivated to start this blog by my desire to make Babalú reflect its stated ideals and become less of an embarrassment to the Cuban exile community. In this I have largely succeeded. I must decide now whether I have succeeded enough.

Charting another year of Babalú's follies is not something that I relish. Nothing would please me more than to be able to devote this blog to the historical essays which you and a few others appreciate. The majority of RCAB's readers, including the entire Babalunian contingent, prefer my critiques of Val and Henry. I must find some accommodation that will please both. But all these are matters to consider in March.

Notable & Odd: Future Performance As an Indicator of Past Performance?

"I've always believed in the axiom that the best indicator of past performance is future performance." — Henry Gómez, "I'd Like to Like Mike [Huckabee]," Babalú, January 4, 2008

Well, this explains a lot. Henry does see the world differently from ordinary mortals.

Henry Gómez & George Moneo for Bill Richardson (By Default)

As announced on the Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour yesterday, Henry Gómez and George Moneo are both supporting Bill Richardson for president by default: that is, if no Republican can win, they would prefer that Richardson did. In respect to Cuba, Richardson is the Democratic candidate with the closest ties to Fidel Castro. Not only has he personally met with Fidel more times than any other candidate, more, in fact, than Jesse Jackson were he a candidate, Richardson has also served as Fidel Castro's personal conduit to the Clinton White House. That's right, not the other way around, which would have been bad enough. It was that kind of "cooperation" which gave us the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy and opened the way for the exchange of information on exile groups between the FBI and the Cuban DGI and who knows what other perfidies that still remain classified.

Before we proceed to detail his stint as Castro's "Man in the White House," let us quote Richardson's estimate of Fidel Castro as reported in a Playboy interview:

"Fidel Castro has an enormously powerful intellect and is well informed. He told me he reads every newspaper, sees every morning broadcast and reads prodigiously. He showed me all the books he read. While I have enormous dislike for his policies — especially human rights; he incarcerates everybody who disagrees with him — he is a fascinating character who tries to intimidate you with his intellect. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, tried to intimidate me with his physical actions. He would try to stare me down. He had a bunch of the Revolutionary Guard around us. He was heavily armed. His gestures were menacing. But through his intellect, Castro would try to destroy every argument I made about why he should take certain steps."

So there you have it. Richardson is in awe of Fidel's "enormously powerful intellect." Why, Fidel even showed him the books he has read and I bet there were a lot of them. Saddam Hussein tried to intimidate Richardson by his menacing gestures, but Fidel did so by virtue of his superior intelligence. Obviously, Fidel doesn't use his "intellect" to overwhelm dissidents in Cuba; he overwhelms them with force. But Richardson is another case. Fidel does think that he can "reason" with him and has even convinced him that he rules by virtue of his "enormously powerful intellect," the same intellect that has turned his country into a charnelhouse.

Back in 1998, Fidel Castro sent a special message to President Clinton which he entrusted to Gabriel García Márquez, the Colombian novelist. García Márquez in turn contacted Bill Richardson, who promised to arrange a meeting with Clinton. Meanwhile, García-Márquez barricaded himself in a Washington, DC hotel room, fearful that he might lose (or be relieved of) the fateful communiqué, which, as a safeguard, he attempted to memorize. (You know, in case he had to eat it). Eventually, Richardson arranged the meeting, but not with Clinton, who was in California, but with his national security advisors. To them he presented his "Message to Clinton," wherein Castro charged that the Cuban American Foundation was waging a clandestine terrorist war against Cuba. García Márquez's confidential account of the meeting at the White House, which Castro, of course, made public, is the only thing he has ever written that I've read twice for the pleasure of it. It confirms to me what I had always suspected, that no man ever lived who was as servile or gullible. (I have copied his comments and confined them in the Madhouse for the Stupid and Obnoxious. It is the last comment, if anyone is interested).

So there you have it. Bill Richardson, admirer of Fidel Castro and García Márquez and errand boy to both, is Henry and George's favorite Democrat (or least unfavorite Democrat).


POSTSCRIPT:

universalspectator said...

Manuel, you are truly, deeply insane. Really, you're nuts. You've finally convinced me.

Your obsession with us has reached levels that even Freud would not comprehend. Christ, were you raised in a Skinner Box? The American Psychiatric Association couldn't come up with a workable definition for your mental condition. And, to add flavoring to your insanity and acute envy, you're a fucking liar to boot! Your mendacity and misinterpretation know no bounds. You invent your scenarios out of whole cloth as an exercise to show what a smart guy you are and instead, what comes out are the rantings of a sad, pathetic, small-minded asshole.

Get a fucking life, get laid, buy an inflatable doll if you're lonely, but do something useful for a change.
1/05/2008 12:14 AM


Manuel A.Tellechea said...
George:

Well, you have graced my blog in your own persona for once. That, at least, is something. Val had no better sense. Henry, at least, knows enough to keep away.

As third banana, you are not very often mentioned in these precincts. If I were obsessed with you, I have certainly done an admirable job of concealing it. Do not attribute this to any particular affinity for you. Yes, I find your cosmopolitan pretensions amusing and you possess the nearest thing to culture in Babalú's Unholy Triad — which is not saying much — but you are usually so little concerned with Cuba and so greatly concerned with your Arabist fetish that your opinions, for the most part, do not fall within the purview of this blog. However, knowing now how much you depend on me for validation and cherish every passing mention of you, I shall endeavor to throw you a bone now and then.

I imagine that you are not able to delete away on your faux radio show as you do on Babalú. So whoever has the time to listen to your aptly named "egofest" can find full confirmation there of everything I have said here. If I were inclined to "invent scenarios out of whole cloth," I would not be able to reach the levels of insanity that come naturally to you and your "friends." (Perhaps some day I will explain why I put friends in quotation marks).

BTW, any man whose rhetorical bag of tricks includes an "inflatable doll" and "small (or large)-assholes" has bigger problems than an inflamed ego.

Notable & Fanatical: Val Oils Up GW Again

"One can criticize President Bush for many things, but I can't recall any other American President making mention of the plight of the Cuban people so often, so publicly, with nothing to gain politically." — Val Prieto, "The American President," Babalú, January 3, 2008

Words, words, words. Good enough for Val but of no use to the Cuban people. Except for punitive measures against Cubans, such as upholding the murderous "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy, restricting the Cuban definition of family and poking a hundred holes in the trade embargo that benefit everybody but the Cuban people, what is it exactly that George W. Bush has done to earn our support? If "one can criticize President Bush for many things," why doesn't Val do it? Worse, why does he promise to do it and then renege on his promise? Back in August of last year, for example, Val said that he would finally deliver himself of an opinion on the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy:

Folks,

The response to the WF/DF I'm working on is taking me much longer than I anticipated. It's a pretty long screed already and I've yet to finish it. Please bear with me. I'll post it as soon as I've covered all the bases.
Posted by: Val Prieto at August 1, 2007 07:23 AM

Val never published anything and is still, supposedly, running the bases 5 months later. Actually, he's been running the bases for 12 years and still hasn't decided what he thinks of the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy. Maybe he's waiting for a Democrat to be again in the White House before he'll condemn it.

Val Asks His Readers to Guess His Position on the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" Policy (July 30, 2007)

You Cannot Love Cuba and Hate Cubans (July 31, 2007)

Notable & Scabby: Scrap the Unions

"I think the aim of unions, in theory, is admirable. Especially given the working conditions that existed in America during the industrial revolution. But today they serve only to fatten the pockets of union leaders, raise prices, and destroy companies." — Henry Gómez, "Voyeuristic Thrill," Babalú, January 3, 2008

Henry is a wellspring of unpleasant surprises. Is he seriously in favor of dismantling unions? During the Industrial Revolution, the robber barons' private armies and sometimes the U.S. Army itself or the local police massacred striking workers at the owner's bidding. Then, Henry admits, unions were "admirable" at least in theory. Now, they are not even palatable to him in theory.

In the 1950s, Cuba's unions were the freest in the world and the most powerful. They secured Cuban workers paid maternity leave 50 years before that notion even entered the American lexicon. They obtained for Cubans a 35-hour work week for which they were entitled to 40 hours compensation; paid vacations and a Christmas bonus amounting to a month's pay, the famous aguinaldo, or 13th month.

Castro's first act was to destroy the independent labor unions and eliminate all the rights which they had secured for the Cuban worker.

Does Henry envision a future democratic (?) Cuba without labor unions? Does he want American companies to exploit workers in Cuba as they do in Asia and elsewhere in Latin America? Does the mere notion of Americans enslaving his parents' countrymen fill him with a "voyeuristic thrill?"

Oh, Henry! What a frightening piece of work you are.

Cuba's Santeros Issue Their Annual Predictions: "It's the Climate, Stupid, It's the Climate"

Santería is a subject I have never written about because it is not part of my Cuba, that is, the internalized Cuba which we all carry inside us and which informs our knowledge of the other Cuba which exists apart from us. I was never enthralled or embarrassed by it because both reactions are on the same continuum and indicate an exaggerated estimation of whatever has our attention. Santería was something which existed outside my range of interests, like protestanism, spiritualism or Buddhism (all of which also flourished at one time in Cuba). Most Cubans, however, paid more attention to santería than I did (at least since spiritualism waned in the 1920s). They may not have been practitioners or even believers, but they "respected" santería. That was the word that was usually used when Cubans were asked their opinion about it. "Respect" implied at least enough reverence not to risk offending its deities. Of course, there was also a vocal minority that considered santería an "atraso" (backward) and wanted it suppressed because they were embarrassed by it. Santería crashed with their conception of a modern country. Babalú was acceptable as a motif in our music, alongside Siboney and other symbols of a vanished tribalism; but not as an incarnate deity in a Catholic country. Cuba was not Haití. The prospect of becoming another Haití was synonymous for much of our history with the end of civilization. Long before the 1950s, when Cuba rivalled Europe on every indicator of socio-economic progress, the specter of a Haitian future seemed to have been transcended forever.

No one would have guessed then that in just a half-century Cuba would replace Haití as the seat (or "see") of tribalism in the Western Hemisphere and santería itself would be accorded official recognition by both Cuba and the U.S. (there's a Supreme Court decision that uphelds their right to animal sacrifice). I have no problem with santería being raised from a cult to a religion ("cults" are just religions that are not popular). What does offend me, however, is that santería has become as much an establishment religion in Cuba as Catholicism. That is, its hierarchy — for now it has one — is as cravenly and complicit as the Catholic Church's. Both admonished their followers, who are often the same people, to raise prayers for Fidel Castro's recovery, and both, of course, hold him blameless for Cuba's woes, the existence of which they either deny or attribute to the U.S. Neither santería nor Catholicism has made common cause with plight of the Cuban people, not even to win new converts or at least keep the ones they have. This is why I don't believe the Associated Press' contention, no doubt derived from some unmentioned Castroite source, that there are 3 million Cuban santeros. People who "respect" it, yes; but not 3 million who are practicing members. I doubt that there are even 1 million practicing Catholics on the island. Unless its occultism has beaten out the occultism of the Catholic Church, I doubt also that santería's adherents reach 1 million, or one-tench of the Cuban population.

At this time of year, however, some 950 babalaos meet in Havana to offer their prognostications for the coming year. More than one thousand gurus also issue their predictions in India and hundreds of other places throughout the world; but the media only report on the predictions of Pat Robertson and the Cuban babalaos. In case anyone is curious, this year the Rev. Robertson prophesied a recession, a major stock market crash and oil at $150 per barrel. All this implies, to his followers at least, a Democratic victory in 2008, though Robertson was reluctant to say so outright for fear of being accused of making a self-fulfilling prophecy. His followers, no doubt, take some comfort from the fact he is always wrong.

Cuba's official babalaos, in their official predictions for 2008, did not discuss political phenomena, but limited themselves to the natural kind (as opposed to the unnatural kind). They have foreseen dangerous changes in climate and an impending environmental hecatomb involving forest fires (is this how they interpret "global warming?") in addition to wars and global epidemics. They have, in short, been reading Castro's "Reflections" and have taken their cues from him (the biggest "babalao" of all). Cubans who triple-distill these predictions as some do Nostradamus' will be pressed to find any indication about Cuba's future with or without Castro. "The challenge at this historic moment is not a political challenge," said a babalao at the press conference where the annual soothsaying report was read. "It is not a social challenge, but the challenge of Nature." Asked directly about what the future year held for Fidel Castro, Babalao Ifa Iwori Bofun, also known as Lázaro Cuesta, discreetly demurred that "That's a topic we're not authorized to discuss (or "touch") because we're not politicians." That did not, however, stop them from predicting that Cuba's economy would "continue to grow" in the coming new year, which was a hat tip to Raúl. Of course, this blessing depends on placating the deities with the traditional food offerings (none of which are available in Cuba), and following their special injunction this year not to squash any ants. Well, if you can't feed them with the offerings, at least don't squash them.

Of course, when the unnatural hurricane that has been afflicting Cuba for 49 years finally subsides, the 950 babalaos will not be as conspicuous nor their predictions a source of national speculation. This, however, will not be the case with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, who serve at the pleasure of the pope. Their conduct has been no less reprehensible, more so, really, since it is they who look askance at the babalaos but show not one ounce more of heroic virtue. Even in Poland, dozens of church officials have been exposed as Communist agents, including John Paul's successor as Archbishop of Krakow. We, at least, know what we can expect from our prelates. No more than from our babalaos.

A Remarkable Discovery: Less of Me Is More

I have made a remarkable discovery. I did not post on the 1st or the 2nd. What happened? The readership of this blog went up by 100% on the first day and 200% on the next. I don't know whether if was everybody checking in to see when the next new post would appear or the Babalunians cherishing the hope that none would appear again. If this trend is constant, I think I could catch up to Babalú's stats in just one month. By writing absolutely nothing. Of course, that would be constitutionally impossible for me and catastrophic for the Cuban blogosphere.

Two new articles will be posted shortly: one on santeria's predictions for 2007 and another on the Cuban regime's website on Cuban cuisine. I don't know which is more surrealistic.

So stay tuned.

Happy New Year!

Nearly 50 years of hopes crushed and lives postponed; a generation already buried and another on the way to extinction; our country in ruins and our people still trapped amid those ruins, our only friend is the clock and also our worst enemy, for its marches bring us closer to the day of our country's deliverance but also shorten our own days. Forty-nine years we have stood on the threshold of the New Year and prayed that that the evil that was born with this day might pass with it. Forty-nine years we have been disappointed. There is always a margin for hope and despair will do no more for us than can hope.

So let us raise our glasses again with the same familiar toast, now unspoken but still as deeply felt.

May this year change everything but our abiding love for country and our boundless faith in our countrymen.

Val At His Best

Val: Your story about the plum tree, your tribute to your father's craftmanship and all the other stories of your family's life in Cuba and in exile with which you have regaled us on Babalú over the years are not inferior in art or interest to Eire's or Samartino's. I do not say this to flatter you because I have nothing to gain by doing so. I simply want you to know where your greatest talent lies and have you recognize the concurrent responsibility of giving it the widest possible audience. Gather all these stories, put them in chronological order and you will see immediately what else needs to be included to fill out your book. And then do it. — Manuel A. Tellechea, Babalú, March 14, 2007

I wrote that two weeks before Val booted me from Babalú for criticizing the Estefans. The praise was unfeigned, but I also wanted to insinuate something to Val that escaped him then.

I have always been honest with myself as well as with others, and I really don't believe it is possible to be one without being the other. I am never hesistant to praise where I see merit or criticize where I see fault. In fact I believe that doing one gives us more authority to do the other. Quite apart from whatever may be my credentials to judge Val as a writer, if I say that Val is as good a writer as Carlos Eire or any other Cuban memorialist — as I have in fact said before and after I was booted from Babalú — then I think my opinion carries added weight precisely because it is contrary to my estimate of him as a political thinker or polemnist. In praising him for one thing I was also implying that he should abandon the other.

Val will never follow the advice of this "intellectual and moral bastion" (as he sarcastically called me), and that's really unfortunate, because he will not hurt me but himself. So be it.

A reward for enduring his political ramblings on Babalú is the occasional post which Val devotes to those dearest and nearest to him. When he writes about his parents or something else that has touched his life as a Cuban exile, he is natural, sincere and likable. In fact, sometimes he even transcends the vein of the memorialist and reaches the higher artistic ground of the costumbrista (folklorist), as he did this morning in his tribute to his family's old sofa, emblematic of the hardships endured by newcomers to this country.

Too bad that Val does not cultivate this genre as much as he should. Instead he wastes his time aspiring to be a political scientist (whose political calculations always end in a bloodbath for the Cuban people). Many talents have been wasted by their wrong application as by a too high estimation of them.

The genial story of Val's beloved old sofa is spoilt, too, by the last sentence:

"There is nothing more disgustingly depressing than daylight on an old sofa, with or without an Adidas duvee."

We know, of course, what Val means, and it is a clever way to turn the discussion to Castro. But there is one problem. Val has written a tribute to the noble old sofa and ends by comparing the sofa to Fidel. Was anything about Fidel ever lovable, faithful, or missed? Will putting him on the ashcan of history be as traumatic for the Cuban people as taking his old sofa to the curb was for Val? I don't think so.

http://www.babalublog.com/archives/006951.html

"To Cling to Power, Or Not to Cling to Power, That Is the Question"

Stream of consciousness is, I suppose, the most polite way to describe Fidel Castro's message to the Cuban National Assembly, read at his request by Ricardo Alarcón yesterday. A less kind evaluation might characterize it as the incoherent ramblings of someone suffering from dementia who thinks that his precious words will resonate with all the world's peoples and be carved in stone someday. No one who reads one sentence of it, however, and is acquainted with Fidel's idiosyncracies will fail to identify it as his own. A list of the persons and subjects mentioned in it will suffice to show his tendency to range far of field, in all directions and with no particular destination,which in a six-hour speech was not too noticeable but which in less than 1000 words hits the listener like so many one-word messages crammed in one bottle, ultimately signifying nothing: Raul Castro; José Martí; Randy Alonso; Joseph Stiglitz; Bill Clinton; Sukarno; Suharto; Lyndon B. Johnson; John F.Kennedy; and the "Five Heroes." For that "kitchen sink effect" he throws in casual mentions of Antarctica and Oceania; the Stone Age; and the "Giant in Seven-League Boots." None of this, of course, is well-digested. I doubt that even the most privileged mind could weave all these diverse topics into one coherent whole; but it is undoubtedly a sign of a failing mind that someone would even try.

At the onset of his message Fidel raised the question of nepotism in regard to his appointment of Raúl to succeed him. Nobody had ever raised it before. One would as lief accuse the Borgias of nepotism as the Castros. When one usurper appoints another usurper to succeed him it little matters if it's his brother or the Great Khan.

Fidel then assumed the mantle of "world statesman." He no doubt thought that his ruminations on Sukarno's overthrow or veiled predictions of a nuclear hecatomb in Pakistan would be front page news in those countries. Perhaps they are. There must be some in those countries who are flattered to be remembered in Castro's senectitude. Greenpeace, too, must be gratified that he mentions the Kyoto Protocal, carbon dioxyde, greenhouse gases and the oxone layer. In fact, Castro proclaims himself the godfather of the movement to save the planet from man: "I predicted, for the first time in Rio de Janeiro, — over 15 years ago, in June 1992 — that our species was threatened with extinction as a result of the destruction of its natural habitat. Today, the number of people who understand the real danger of this grows every day." It seems that Fidel may feel cheated by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore. Surely a joint award would have served both of them right.

Then comes his personal reflections on his life and times, all, as I've already noted, in the span of just 1000 words. He is very gratified that his refusal to "cling to power," which he proclaimed after nearly a half-century of exercising absolute power, was received in all seriousness and even commended by the world press. However, he wishes to make one modification. It seems that he did once desire to cling to power, before he came to power, in his halcyon days, when he was just a mere "utopian socialist." After he was actually in power he was cured of his craving for power. Nearly fifty years later, he no longer feels the inclination to "cling to power." Whether this inclination will ever rise to the level of a determination to surrender power, he leaves unanswered. Maybe in another 50 years if he can renew his Faustian pact.

This clarification of his imperial aspirations was also noted by the international media, but I don't think he will be as pleased with the latest spin on it. Of course, their sympathies are still with him but a fortuitous mistranslation has invested his remarks with a candor which the original did not possess. The MSM has reported that Castro said, apropos of his early (and fully consummated) aspirations to cling to power, that it was a product of his "youth and lack of conscience." Of course, Castro said "conciencia," which in this context means knowledge or awareness. Granma translated the phrase correctly but nobody else followed suit. Everywhere in the world today, on the eve of the 49th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, it is being reported that Fidel's self-admitted "lack of conscience" in his youth caused him to want to cling to power. The truth prevails because of a false friend and a poor translation.

Fidel again credits (=blames) Martí for influencing the course of his wretched life. I hope the Cuban people are sophisticated enough to be able to tell the difference between thesis and antithesis, which is the only relation that Martí bears to Castro. Sadly, 50 years of being acclaimed as the "Intellectual Author of Moncada" has discredited Martí in Cuba, especially among the young. I do not think that the decision to co-opt Martí was inspired by love or reverence on Castro's part. On the contrary, he needed to debase what was purest in our national life in order to stand on equal ground with Martí and even tower over him. Castro knocked down Estrada Palma's statue but he did much worse to Martí — he falsified and prostituted his legacy. His phrase "Martí's ideas and those of the classics of socialism" is equivalent to saying "Jefferson's ideas and those of the classics of fascism." Observe also that Marx is never mentioned by name anymore; he is just a "classic of socialism;" poor Martí, alone, must bear the responsibility for the debacle of the last 50 years. This is the final "tribute" of the "Generation of the Centenary," as Castro's generation calls itself because it came of age in 1953, the 100th anniversary of Martí's birth.

Martí's dream, as expressed in his last letter, was to "cling to the last tree and disappear," not to cling to power forever. If he survived the war Martí desired to become a teacher in a rural school and spend the rest of his absorbing Cuba's natural beauty, from which he was cut off for most of his life. That was the limit of Martí's personal ambition. What a contrast to the megalomaniac who would later claim him as his model!

Castro notes that "Martí taught us that 'all of the world's glory fits in a kernel of corn.' Many times have I said and repeated this phrase, which carries in eleven words a veritable school of ethics." Yes, a "veritable school of ethics," but not Castro's school. Martí was contrasting "la gloria del mundo" (the glory of this world), that is, the pomp of this world, to real glory which transcends the mundane because it is willing to abandon sinecures and benefices and all other earthly rewards. True glory is the renunciation of personal ambition, or, rather, the subsuming of all ambition in the common work of redemption. No man who possessed such glory would ever have to grapple on his deathbed with the idea of not clinging to power after 50 years of unelected rule.

[Photograph: Raúl Castro is shown "reading" the text of his brother's speech with closed eyes].

Wickets and Guayaba

We are pleased to welcome Wickets and Guayaba to our Fraternal Blogroll. Its editor, Daniel de Garanhuns, is well-known in the Cuban blogosphere as an acute commenter with a unique perspective on Cuban affairs from Brazil. We have always said that a good commenter is worth ten bloggers. It would appear, however, that a good many commenters are becoming bloggers themselves. Perhaps that is the reason that the "Comments" sections of most Cuban blogs look like a hurricane passed through and left nothing hitched to the posts. Still, we would not deny Daniel the chance to shine by his own light and we are sure that he will shine brightly.

http://wicketsandguayaba.blogspot.com/

How to Stop the Wanton Killing of Cubans on the High Seas

"[I] can't bring myself to condemning the [U.S.] Coast Guard for doing what they are told to do [hunt down, capsize and murder Cuban refugees]. It must be extremely frustrating to have to chase down these boats under dangerous conditions [for the refugees, not the Coast Guard]. The problem is, how do we solve the smuggling problem? — Robert Moneda, "Cuban Exiles Once Again to Blame," Babalú, December 29, 2007

The answer to Robert's query is very simple: Stop throwing Cuban refugees over an aquatic Berlin Wall. Stop vilifying the smugglers (latter-day abolitionists) who bring Cubans to freedom. Stop making excuses for the U.S. Coast Guard whose orders are to use all available means (including lethal force) to stop the refugees from reaching freedom and the rights accorded them by U.S. law under the Cuban Adjustment Act (1966): following orders is no justification for a crime against humanity. Stop lionizing George W. Bush, who has upheld Clinton's "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy longer than Clinton did. And, finally, stop supporting candidates who value Cuban lives as cheaply as Bush does, whether Republicans or Democrats.

Other Posts on This Subject:

Val the Abolitionist vs. Henry the Slaver

One Man's Obsession: The Smugglers Who Risk All to Free Castro's Slaves

Angels Who Smuggle Men to Freedom

Alfonso Chardy is the New Oscar Corral

You Cannot Love Cuba and Hate Cubans

The Truth In Season

RCAB's Funniest Posts for 2007

Here are 10 of the RCAB's funniest posts this year. With nearly 500 to choose from, and almost all of them humorous (or at least imbued with humor), it was not an easy choice. In fact, I have expended more time selecting them than if I had written 2 or 3 new posts. I excluded most of the Babalú critiques because they would have overwhelmed everything else. I also sought to vary the topics, although 10 posts do not afford much opportunity to be expansive. My favorite from this selection? It's a tie between Anita Snow the hunger artist and the 520 lbs. woman who went to Cuba to in search of new knees and a revived sex life. Of course, you could click any month on your right and laugh for hours if you are so disposed. It's suppose to be good for you. It certainly is good for me.


Juventud Rebelde Hails Metrosexuality in Cuba (11/24/07)
One would think that in a country where women use sugar syrup (almíbar) for hair dressing and lightning fluid for deodorant (both excellent for their purposes if these are to catch bees or fire), the likelihood of men co-opting their "beauty products" for their own personal toilet would be slim. But, if Juventud Rebelde is to be believed, metrosexuality has taken Cuba by storm...

Cuban Ambassador Puts On Fashion Show In Jamaica to Mark "Cuba Day" There (Updated) (Oct. 31, 2007)
I didn't know there was a "National Day of Cuban Culture" in Jamaica. The idea itself is not incongruous; the two Caribbean islands share a long and complex history, though their roots and colonial experiences are not identical. The focus of the festivities was a fashion show which featured the latest innovations from Cuba's so-called "fashion industry." Now, the island's chancletera aristocracy has never been obsessed with dressing to the nines. There is nary an Evita Perón among them. On the contrary, though their confiscated pre-Castro mansions have the latest appliances from K-Mart and their larders may be stocked with precious delicacies from a typical American Dollar Store, their wardrobes are not noted for great extravagance...

Another Satisfied (Foreign) Customer of Cuba's Health Care System (Sept. 6, 2007)
Here's a follow-up on Diane Paul, the 520 lb. Canadian who went to Cuba in October for knee replacement surgery... As we noted when Mrs. Paul first announced her quest for new knees in Cuba, she should ask to see them before they were implanted. Improvisation is the great resourse of Cuban medicine. A patient with bone cancer recently had a section of his legbone replaced with a broomstick. The operation was successful. New bone actually grew over the broomstick. No doubt the news of this revolutionary achievement would not have been made public if the operation had failed. Maybe it failed many times before this success. Still, we warned Mrs. Paul to be wary or she could end up with wooden clogs for knees...

Of "Che" Guevara's Hair and Napoleon's Penis (Oct. 26, 2007).
Gustavo Villoldo has had his payday at long last and I couldn't be happier for him. If everything else has been commercialized about "Che" Guevara, why not his goldilocks? The old freedom fighter will receive $100,000 (minus commission) for a tress of "Che" Guevara's hair which Villoldo snipped 40 years ago before burying the serial killer...

Ana Menéndez Psychoanalyzes Cuban Exiles (Sept. 24, 2007)
[Y]ou would do Ana Menéndez a great injustice if you thought she was merely a self-hating Cuban who trades on her ethnicity while remaining aloof from "her people" and even contemptuous of them; who discovered at the age of 35, after denying her roots all her life, that being a Cuban by accident and a liberal by choice had its advantages in the world of journalism, where such rara avis are collected and sheltered and even presented to the world as representative of their species when in fact they are only freaks...

White Dade R.I.P. (Sept. 12, 2007)
As this is a review of Cuban-American blogs, I do not usually concern myself with blogs written by Anglos for the expressed purpose of heaping scorn on Cubans and Hispanics in general. Perhaps I should. The most prominent of these blogs is (or was) White Dade. I only learned of its existence at its funeral. The author was obliged to close his blog when he was "outed" as a racist by his college newspaper. Before the prospect of losing his sinecure as a grad-student-cum-instructor, he put away his bedsheet and closed his blog. Well, almost... One of White Dade's last posts was written as HBC (Hot Blonde Chick). In it he/she complains endlessly about the unwanted attentions of short Hispanic men at local bars, where at 6'2" he/she towers over everybody. White Dade seems particularly fixated with the size of Hispanic men's penises, which he believes to be smaller than the endowments of white men...

Insanity, Homoeroticism and Xenophobia on "The Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour" (Aug. 2, 2007)
Never before had I heard a man having a nervous breakdown on radio, even faux radio; but the dozen or so listeners to yesterday's Babalu Radio Hour witnessed such a spectable. It was frightful, horrible and unexpected...

ஹொசே மார்த்தியின் எளிய கவிதைகள் - முன்னுரை (July 7, 2007)
"The Distilled Wisdom of Manuel A.Tellechea." As published in the Indian press. Yep, it's in Hindi.

Anita Snow the Hunger Artist, or The New York Times' "Snow Job" (June 13, 2007)
Let this be duly noted at the onset: Anita Snow's stint as a hunger artist is nothing but a charade, an imposture and a fraud. To all those attributes let us add too unoriginality and callousness to a degree seldom encountered in that most cynical of all enterprises known as American journalism...

Babysitting the Beacon School Bitongos (April 25, 2007)
[T]hese kids might have profitted from their trip to Cuba if they had been able to enroll in the Literacy Campaign, not as alphabetizers but as the alphabetized. If this is the kind of education my taxdollars underwrite, I am all for cutting off funding for public education. Truly, if I were their teacher, I would probably have ended up a suicide. The funny thing is that they don't seem to have any inkling of just how stupid and illiterate they are. I guess this can be explained by the media's description of their school as "special" (in a good way) and "prestigious." They may be under the misapprehension that these juvenile delinquents are attending Stuyvesant or Bronx Science, but I am not...

Forgot about this one:

Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize; Cuban Dissidents Again Ignored (Oct. 12, 2007)

Albert Arnold Gore has been awarded the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize. America's national joke is now the Norwegians' paradigm of modernity and savior of the planet. Jerry Lewis must feel relieved that now somebody else represents the cultural divide between the U.S. and Europe. Of course, Lewis actually claimed to be a comedian...