"That fat SOB," the old man with the Cuban flag on his lapel thought. "He would have killed me if he had the chance; probably had to rush home to barbecue that pack of cigarettes on his teeth. Of course, the mineral water that he also bought is going to do him a lot of good. Burn your lungs by 50 and then marinade them in mineral water! That's the answer! I swear, I don't know what's wrong with these niños canosos. In such a hurry always to get nowhere fast. No patience for life; no consideration for their elders who paved the way for them in this country, slowly, very slowly, because there was no royal way then.
"Now, those two fresh-faced kids tending the counter, one of whom is certainly Cuban, are the hope of the future, as the Apostle said. Yes, everything is a joke to them now and they care about nothing but themselves. It is that stage of life but they will soon outgrow it (unlike that bitongo who is trapped in perpetual adolescense). But, of course, we raised them that way, sheltered them from our realities, did everything in our power to hide our anguish and make their lives as happy and comfortable as we could. What else could we have done? And now this SOB sneers at me when I pick up a copy of El Diario Las Américas while he lugs his Miami Herald. He must think I am trapped in a time warp; maybe I am, but those were better times peopled by better men. I feel sorry for him, though. So much anger and misdirected rage should have a more constructive outlet than trying to run down old men."
http://babalublog.com/2008/04/11/conviction-and-non-chalance/
Friday, April 11, 2008
Notable & Quotable: The Root of the Problem
"The nation of Babalunia indeed is more important to the Babalunians than a free Cuba." — Vana
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Nightly Tally
RCAB = 387
Babalú = 30
What is the meaning of comments?
Comments mean that readers are actively engaged with the blog that they are visiting, not unfamiliar or disconnected; that they feel welcome and know that their opinions matter; that they do not fear being browbeaten, deleted or banned because they withhold their approval or dare to dissent; and, above all else, that they know they are part of a community which is democratic and open to all currents of opinion. This is what all blogs should aspire to be and especially Cuban-American blogs which must be consistent in their opposition to censorship and other undemocratic practices in order to attack our enemies from a superior advantage rather than on their execrable level.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The Chivato and the Procurer
Phil Peters said on his blog today that he is not a CIA agent, contrary to what Henry had implied on Babalú. Of course, if Peters were a CIA agent one would hardly expect him to put his his livelihood in jeopardy by admitting it. Still, this was one of the luckiest days in Henry's life. He was busy backtracking on his privileged information when Peters left him off the hook. Still, the intent to harm Peters was there as unconcealed as Val Prieto's attempt on Killcastro's life. Of course, the latter was immeasurably worse because Peters does not have family in Cuba that could become hostages as Killcastro's did. The worse that could happen to Peters is that a lot of contacts at the highest levels of the Cuban government [sic] would fail to return his calls, or, in the worst case scenario, that he would be barred from travelling to Communist Cuba. That would have a catastrophic effect on both his public and his private life, granted, but he wouldn't have had his skull cracked as Killcastro's wife's brother-in-law did nor would he be imprisoned as Killcastro's cousin was. Still, the consequences of these acts, though important in determining their severity, do not speak to motive, and in both cases the motive was the same -- to disrupt their lives for the worse by making potentially-dangerous information about them public that neither does desired should be made public. That takes a long breath to say. In Spanish, it is so much easier: both Val & Henry are guilty of chivatería.
Phil Peters, if anyone ever doubted it, is a capitalist. We now have it on his own authority. He is, in fact, a capitalist of the old school. He has the same serene perspective on the exploitation of man by man that the robber barons of old did, except he is not one of them. He is merely their publicist, also in the 19th-century connotation, which combined both lobbyist and procurer. To put it in a simple but forceful way, Peters is a capitalist pimp. U.S. companies pay him money to introduce them to future business opportunities in Cuba and to do whatever lies in his power, through the Lexington Institute and his blog, to hasten the day when Cuba's captive workforce will be enlisted in the service of American corporations. Cubans, who have no labor laws to protect them and are hostages of a regime that actively encourages their exploitation, are ideal subjects for predatory capitalism, which, of course, is on the same continuum as Communism (which is always predatory).
With the monies it receives as "donations" from U.S. corporations interested in doing dusiness with Cuba's Communist overlords, the Lexington Institute underwrites and Peters himself conducts junkets for U.S. congressmen who want to "do Cuba," bringing them to places of interest there such as churches and soybean factories, according to him. The congressmen, after returning from the island, take their places as proud fighters against the embargo and for re-establishing relations with the Communist regime so that all Americans, not just themselves, may enjoy the privilege of visiting Baptist churches and soybean processing factories in Cuba.
Peters is also involved, in a strictly private capacity, in negotiating the return of stolen properties to their American owners through proxies. Since the thieves, Castro and his henchmen, are unwilling to turn these over to the corporate heirs of the original owners, Peters arranges marriages of convenience between the Cuban regime and their foreign subsidiaries. One hand washes the other hand and both hands are squeezing the collective neck of the Cuban people.
That is what Mr. Peters does, or, rather, what he facilitates. To be sure he does so with as much charm and commiseration as anyone could bring to such a task.
Phil Peters, if anyone ever doubted it, is a capitalist. We now have it on his own authority. He is, in fact, a capitalist of the old school. He has the same serene perspective on the exploitation of man by man that the robber barons of old did, except he is not one of them. He is merely their publicist, also in the 19th-century connotation, which combined both lobbyist and procurer. To put it in a simple but forceful way, Peters is a capitalist pimp. U.S. companies pay him money to introduce them to future business opportunities in Cuba and to do whatever lies in his power, through the Lexington Institute and his blog, to hasten the day when Cuba's captive workforce will be enlisted in the service of American corporations. Cubans, who have no labor laws to protect them and are hostages of a regime that actively encourages their exploitation, are ideal subjects for predatory capitalism, which, of course, is on the same continuum as Communism (which is always predatory).
With the monies it receives as "donations" from U.S. corporations interested in doing dusiness with Cuba's Communist overlords, the Lexington Institute underwrites and Peters himself conducts junkets for U.S. congressmen who want to "do Cuba," bringing them to places of interest there such as churches and soybean factories, according to him. The congressmen, after returning from the island, take their places as proud fighters against the embargo and for re-establishing relations with the Communist regime so that all Americans, not just themselves, may enjoy the privilege of visiting Baptist churches and soybean processing factories in Cuba.
Peters is also involved, in a strictly private capacity, in negotiating the return of stolen properties to their American owners through proxies. Since the thieves, Castro and his henchmen, are unwilling to turn these over to the corporate heirs of the original owners, Peters arranges marriages of convenience between the Cuban regime and their foreign subsidiaries. One hand washes the other hand and both hands are squeezing the collective neck of the Cuban people.
That is what Mr. Peters does, or, rather, what he facilitates. To be sure he does so with as much charm and commiseration as anyone could bring to such a task.
Babalú's "Magnificent Cadres" Are In Disarray As Yet Another Dissenter Breaks Ranks
Its latest recruit "Cigar Mike" Pancier has joined the underground resistance to Babalú at Babalú. He made a very direct hit at Henry "Economist" Gómez this morning when he blasted Babalú's "idiot front" and its "regular postings from abysmally ignorant dolts who have no clue about the law or economics." Pancier should have added politics too, but that would have focused attention too directly on Henry, self-proclaimed "political animal since the age of 5," whose campaign against John McCain and idealization of Barack Obama nearly destroyed the Republican blog. In fact, "Cigar Mike," an unconditional supporter of McCain, has been drafted to do damage control at Babalú, where, thankfully, we shall never again see another anti-McCain post from the "political animal."
It is interesting, though, that Pancier should have mentioned specifically "the law" as one of the areas where the "dolt's" ignorance is particularly refulgent; for yesterday Henry proved it by outing a CIA agent, which is a federal crime punishable by ten years' imprisonment. No doubt there were frantic consultations with Pancier on this subject yesterday, although we do not believe that this is his area of expertise.
Still, it must be a comfort to Val & Henry to have a lawyer on board, though it is unlikely that they will consult him before they leap without looking into legal minefields.
POSTSCRIPT:
The seams are splitting in all directions at Babalú. Now it is Henry and Reinier "Gusano" Potts who are trading barbs about the presidential race:
Ready to switch parties yet Reinier?
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at April 9, 2008 09:51 AM
Ready to vote for McCain, Henry?
Posted by: Gusano at April 9, 2008 09:54 AM
I'm ready to vote for Lincoln Diaz-Balart for congress and donate to him and Mario and Ileana.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at April 9, 2008 10:00 AM
Whether he knows it or not, Henry is supporting McCain by supporting Florida's Cuban-American Republican congressional delegation. I doubt very much that they would want his support, however, if they knew of the enormities he has said about John McCain on Babalú. That's "Cigar Mike's" job -- to make everybody forget.
It is interesting, though, that Pancier should have mentioned specifically "the law" as one of the areas where the "dolt's" ignorance is particularly refulgent; for yesterday Henry proved it by outing a CIA agent, which is a federal crime punishable by ten years' imprisonment. No doubt there were frantic consultations with Pancier on this subject yesterday, although we do not believe that this is his area of expertise.
Still, it must be a comfort to Val & Henry to have a lawyer on board, though it is unlikely that they will consult him before they leap without looking into legal minefields.
POSTSCRIPT:
The seams are splitting in all directions at Babalú. Now it is Henry and Reinier "Gusano" Potts who are trading barbs about the presidential race:
Ready to switch parties yet Reinier?
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at April 9, 2008 09:51 AM
Ready to vote for McCain, Henry?
Posted by: Gusano at April 9, 2008 09:54 AM
I'm ready to vote for Lincoln Diaz-Balart for congress and donate to him and Mario and Ileana.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at April 9, 2008 10:00 AM
I'll take that as a no then, Mr. Gomez. Can't wait for the Obama-Castro-Chavez summit in Key Biscayne in 2010. Maybe Joe [García] can play translator.
Posted by: Gusano at April 9, 2008 11:45 AM
No rebuttal from "Mr. Gómez." What explanation can there be for betraying two countries at once? And it is a Democrat (Gusano) who takes the Republican Henry to task for it.
Also of interest is the fact that Lincoln & Mario Díaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen endorsed McCain before he had even won a primary; no, before even the first primary was held. The only one who beat them to McCain's door to endorse him was McCain's own mother.Whether he knows it or not, Henry is supporting McCain by supporting Florida's Cuban-American Republican congressional delegation. I doubt very much that they would want his support, however, if they knew of the enormities he has said about John McCain on Babalú. That's "Cigar Mike's" job -- to make everybody forget.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Question of the Day
Doesn't Henry know that outing a current or former CIA agent is now a federal crime?
The Two Things that Threaten to Destroy Babalú Sooner Than Later
No Open Discussion: Val and the senior Babalú editors micromanage every aspect of Babalú. They are not content merely to post their opinions and have their readers react to them. They feel the urge to manipulate the comment threads so that they reflect the opinions stated in the posts. A great deal of time and effort is spent tailoring other people's opinions to match their own. This is done by banning pro forma anyone who expresses an opinion contrary to theirs, or simply deleting the opinion if they feel munificent that day, with an accompanying rebuke threatening future expulsion. For a time they even doled out "suspensions" to its commenters for sundry offenses such as not being sufficiently obeisant to its editors, which is certainly understandable from the manner in which they are treated.
When, for whatever reason, a thread managed to "get away from them" and they lost control over its content, their solution was to delete the post and offending thread, that is, flush it down the memory hole. This happened only last week to Henry Gómez's "Squashing the Losers" post and its accompanying thread, where Henry tried to justify Killcastro's recent outing by Val Prieto on his own blog. Except that even Babalú's approved commenters would have none of it and challenged Henry continually on it till he said "No Más" and made the thread, and, he hoped, the controversy disappear. That post (which I have saved) was significant because in it Henry revealed in exasperation what many had long suspected: No. 1 and No. 2 not only must approve the opinions of commenters before these are inserted in Babalú, but also the posts of its contributing editors, who have only so much independence as Val & Henry choose to grant them.
The end result of all this cutting and trimming was to create a perfectly predictable blog, where everybody marched in lockstep, both posters and commenters. This is what George Moneo described, perhaps sarcastically, as "Babalú's magnificent cadres." Only yesterday, Babalú's new ideologist, rsnlk, wrote what could be called the "Babalú Creed" which codified, sanctified, enshrined all these practices into a "philosophy of conformity" that owes much to George Orwell's 1984 and to every Communist, Fascist or National Socialist programme ever devised to degrade the dignity of man and magnify the importance of the State. A Babalú contributing writer, the only professional journalist on its staff, dissented with the official ideology, as we desperately hoped against hope that someone would. It was a discussion that only Val Prieto felt safe to join. The discussion ended abruptly and without resolution. The thread has a kind of stunted appearance which suggests that others may have tried to join in the discussion but were turned away. I suppose that it is out of respect for Marc Másferrer, whose focus on political prisoners is the most laudable thing about Babalú, that his remarks have not been deleted, though don't exactly hold your breath. They have now proclaimed it: there is no room at Babalú for non-conformists. If Val's instincts are right, he has very few of those on staff.
Let us hope that Val is wrong about Babalu's contributing writers and that at least some of them will join Marc's protest. My message to the other 15 contributing writers: An audience of 2000-3000 readers a day, or even an audience of 100 million, is not worth selling you conscience and integrity for. The only culpable slaves are those who wear their chains as a talisman.
No Transparency: There has never been any transparency at Babalú. Personal revelations by its editor-in-chief, yes. Plenty of those, from Val's various ailments, depressions and even questions of personal toilet (i.e. shaving his legs) to his continuing "This New House" series dedicated to the Prieto manse, his other work in progress. But none of that is transparency, rather, it is curtain which Val's hangs to conceal the absolute lack of candor or forthrightness on Babalú. A prime example of this was disappearance -- indeed, the airbrushing -- of George Moneo, which remains to be explained by George the good soldier or anybody else at Babalú. Everybody is used to the banning of commenters at Babalú; it is the reason there are virtually none left there. But the banning of a contributing editor, with seniority over everybody except the blog owner, requires an explanation that was never proferred. It's part of their "not airing dirty linen" policy. But, of course, sometimes it is necessary to wash and air the dirty laundry. Keeping it stacked up in a smelly pile is not the answer. Light and air is.
Hopefully, Val will realize this before it's too late or the other Babalú contributors who have approved or tolerated his actions in the past will finally call him to task for sabotaging in a thousand ways their project and compromising their own integrity in the process of destroying his.
When, for whatever reason, a thread managed to "get away from them" and they lost control over its content, their solution was to delete the post and offending thread, that is, flush it down the memory hole. This happened only last week to Henry Gómez's "Squashing the Losers" post and its accompanying thread, where Henry tried to justify Killcastro's recent outing by Val Prieto on his own blog. Except that even Babalú's approved commenters would have none of it and challenged Henry continually on it till he said "No Más" and made the thread, and, he hoped, the controversy disappear. That post (which I have saved) was significant because in it Henry revealed in exasperation what many had long suspected: No. 1 and No. 2 not only must approve the opinions of commenters before these are inserted in Babalú, but also the posts of its contributing editors, who have only so much independence as Val & Henry choose to grant them.
The end result of all this cutting and trimming was to create a perfectly predictable blog, where everybody marched in lockstep, both posters and commenters. This is what George Moneo described, perhaps sarcastically, as "Babalú's magnificent cadres." Only yesterday, Babalú's new ideologist, rsnlk, wrote what could be called the "Babalú Creed" which codified, sanctified, enshrined all these practices into a "philosophy of conformity" that owes much to George Orwell's 1984 and to every Communist, Fascist or National Socialist programme ever devised to degrade the dignity of man and magnify the importance of the State. A Babalú contributing writer, the only professional journalist on its staff, dissented with the official ideology, as we desperately hoped against hope that someone would. It was a discussion that only Val Prieto felt safe to join. The discussion ended abruptly and without resolution. The thread has a kind of stunted appearance which suggests that others may have tried to join in the discussion but were turned away. I suppose that it is out of respect for Marc Másferrer, whose focus on political prisoners is the most laudable thing about Babalú, that his remarks have not been deleted, though don't exactly hold your breath. They have now proclaimed it: there is no room at Babalú for non-conformists. If Val's instincts are right, he has very few of those on staff.
Let us hope that Val is wrong about Babalu's contributing writers and that at least some of them will join Marc's protest. My message to the other 15 contributing writers: An audience of 2000-3000 readers a day, or even an audience of 100 million, is not worth selling you conscience and integrity for. The only culpable slaves are those who wear their chains as a talisman.
No Transparency: There has never been any transparency at Babalú. Personal revelations by its editor-in-chief, yes. Plenty of those, from Val's various ailments, depressions and even questions of personal toilet (i.e. shaving his legs) to his continuing "This New House" series dedicated to the Prieto manse, his other work in progress. But none of that is transparency, rather, it is curtain which Val's hangs to conceal the absolute lack of candor or forthrightness on Babalú. A prime example of this was disappearance -- indeed, the airbrushing -- of George Moneo, which remains to be explained by George the good soldier or anybody else at Babalú. Everybody is used to the banning of commenters at Babalú; it is the reason there are virtually none left there. But the banning of a contributing editor, with seniority over everybody except the blog owner, requires an explanation that was never proferred. It's part of their "not airing dirty linen" policy. But, of course, sometimes it is necessary to wash and air the dirty laundry. Keeping it stacked up in a smelly pile is not the answer. Light and air is.
Hopefully, Val will realize this before it's too late or the other Babalú contributors who have approved or tolerated his actions in the past will finally call him to task for sabotaging in a thousand ways their project and compromising their own integrity in the process of destroying his.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Notable & Regimented: A Lament for Lost Conformity
"It is no more disheartening than to see the world of blogs devoted to Cuba where there is often too little exchange of ideas and too much clash of personalities, where one-upmanship often takes the place of enlightenment, where some prefer to assert their own superiority rather than instruct their more information challenged confreres. It is a world rife with mine fields, where the most innocent of comments or even lack of commentary can start a verbal conflagration. Who needs it?" — RSNLK, "The Anguish of a Cuban-American Blogger," Ninety Miles Away... In Another Country, April 5, 2008 [reprinted in Babalú, April 7].
Who needs it?
We all do, especially Cubans on the island. It's called democracy. A messy piece of work, but indispensable for the growth of man and survival of civilization. An echo chamber is not democracy. A Greek chorus is not democracy. The synchronized march of cadres is not democracy. Open discussion and dissent, the unhampered clash of opinions and personalities, the right of you to be you and of me to be me, that is democracy.
And democracy is what can save us, not conformity.
POSTSCRIPT:
This has been long in coming and is a most welcome development at Babalú: a call for renewed conformity brings instead a plea for diversity from Marc R. Másferrer, which all contributors to Babalú would be wise to heed if they wish not to be mistaken for the very thing they decry. Unity is a cohesion of wills, not a melding of minds. When debate threatens unity then unity never really existed. In fact, without debate, real unity is impossible:
Well said, I guess, but I'm not sure anyone cares with the "anguish" we CA bloggers might or might not feel as we do our thing. If it's so hard, just do something else. To whine in public like this is just a wasteful self-indulgence and does nothing to serve our cause.
I don't begrudge your sentiment, but don't lose perspective. Whatever anguish or discomfort or frustration you are feeling is nothing — absolutely nothing — like that felt by people, i.e. Cubans on the island, suffering each day because of the dictatorship. Making the story about us, the bloggers, does nothing to help them, the Cuban people.
We really have no right to complain.
Posted by: Marc R. Masferrer at April 7, 2008 02:29 PM
I disagree, Marc. While you are correct in stating that our lives as compared to those Cubans on the island are vastly different and much, much easier, the frustrations we feel are just as real. the pain we feel is just as real. And, I can tell you from my own personal experience that when one of your own - a fellow Cuban exile - states in no uncertain terms that he or she wishes you to be dead, the pain is twofold.
So youll forgive that, in a blog with 7704 posts primarily highlighting the injustcies that Cubans in Cuba live with on a daily basis, that one post is written to express how we on the fortunate side of the Gulfstream sometimes feel.
Posted by: Val Prieto at April 7, 2008 03:15 PM
Val — I am not denying the pain and frustration are not as real. I have felt plenty of it. But so what? I deal with it and get back to what's really important.
I don't think that's why readers come here or any other Cuban blog. Our "anguish" may help inspire our work, I just don't think people don't want to read about how or why we are torn up personally. I just think it is distracting and as I said above, a bit self-indulgent.
Posted by: Marc R. Masferrer at April 7, 2008 04:15 PM
Val - As for the threats that were made against you, I don't think people come here to read about that either. That's even more reason to not engage with folks who would do something so vile.
Posted by: Marc R. Masferrer at April 7, 2008 04:17 PM
The very last thing I intended was to create diviseness here, nor did I intend it as bellyaching. If that is the way it comes across, I failed in my original intent which was in a roundabout way to plead for more civility among ourselves and a reminder to keep our eyes on the prize.
Posted by: rsnlk at April 7, 2008 04:40 PM
Civility is fine and in fact, preferred, as long as it is not confused with unquestioned conformity. These are difficult issues we deal with, and there is not always unanimity, nor should there be. Revel in the back and forth, for in the end it makes the debate and its conclusions, stronger.
Posted by: Marc R. Masferrer at April 7, 2008 04:52 PM
Who needs it?
We all do, especially Cubans on the island. It's called democracy. A messy piece of work, but indispensable for the growth of man and survival of civilization. An echo chamber is not democracy. A Greek chorus is not democracy. The synchronized march of cadres is not democracy. Open discussion and dissent, the unhampered clash of opinions and personalities, the right of you to be you and of me to be me, that is democracy.
And democracy is what can save us, not conformity.
POSTSCRIPT:
This has been long in coming and is a most welcome development at Babalú: a call for renewed conformity brings instead a plea for diversity from Marc R. Másferrer, which all contributors to Babalú would be wise to heed if they wish not to be mistaken for the very thing they decry. Unity is a cohesion of wills, not a melding of minds. When debate threatens unity then unity never really existed. In fact, without debate, real unity is impossible:
Well said, I guess, but I'm not sure anyone cares with the "anguish" we CA bloggers might or might not feel as we do our thing. If it's so hard, just do something else. To whine in public like this is just a wasteful self-indulgence and does nothing to serve our cause.
I don't begrudge your sentiment, but don't lose perspective. Whatever anguish or discomfort or frustration you are feeling is nothing — absolutely nothing — like that felt by people, i.e. Cubans on the island, suffering each day because of the dictatorship. Making the story about us, the bloggers, does nothing to help them, the Cuban people.
We really have no right to complain.
Posted by: Marc R. Masferrer at April 7, 2008 02:29 PM
I disagree, Marc. While you are correct in stating that our lives as compared to those Cubans on the island are vastly different and much, much easier, the frustrations we feel are just as real. the pain we feel is just as real. And, I can tell you from my own personal experience that when one of your own - a fellow Cuban exile - states in no uncertain terms that he or she wishes you to be dead, the pain is twofold.
So youll forgive that, in a blog with 7704 posts primarily highlighting the injustcies that Cubans in Cuba live with on a daily basis, that one post is written to express how we on the fortunate side of the Gulfstream sometimes feel.
Posted by: Val Prieto at April 7, 2008 03:15 PM
Val — I am not denying the pain and frustration are not as real. I have felt plenty of it. But so what? I deal with it and get back to what's really important.
I don't think that's why readers come here or any other Cuban blog. Our "anguish" may help inspire our work, I just don't think people don't want to read about how or why we are torn up personally. I just think it is distracting and as I said above, a bit self-indulgent.
Posted by: Marc R. Masferrer at April 7, 2008 04:15 PM
Val - As for the threats that were made against you, I don't think people come here to read about that either. That's even more reason to not engage with folks who would do something so vile.
Posted by: Marc R. Masferrer at April 7, 2008 04:17 PM
The very last thing I intended was to create diviseness here, nor did I intend it as bellyaching. If that is the way it comes across, I failed in my original intent which was in a roundabout way to plead for more civility among ourselves and a reminder to keep our eyes on the prize.
Posted by: rsnlk at April 7, 2008 04:40 PM
Civility is fine and in fact, preferred, as long as it is not confused with unquestioned conformity. These are difficult issues we deal with, and there is not always unanimity, nor should there be. Revel in the back and forth, for in the end it makes the debate and its conclusions, stronger.
Posted by: Marc R. Masferrer at April 7, 2008 04:52 PM
Good News: Castro Is Nearer to Death
Our friends at Killcastro have the latest on Fidel's medical condition. Things don't look good for the old bugger (no, that's his brother Raúl). The Shit is finally winning. It would have had a much easier time in any other man, but Fidel's capacity to process shit is legendary. But not anymore.
Read about it at:
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/
Read about it at:
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/
Henry Is "Just a Man," He Says
I think that I may have started more than one post with the exclamation, "I don't believe that Babalú can sink any lower" and yet they always manage to raise the stakes on stupid. Well, this time I don't believe that they can top themselves and I mean it as never before: Henry is now writing fake e-mails to himself which he answers on Babalú in lieu of comments because these have dried up for good. He gives himself away by inserting too many errata in his fictional e-mail just to make sure that he hasn't made his invented opponent too smart. One would think that with so many real opponents as Henry thinks he has that he would have no necessity of inventing new ones. Phil Peters is right there. Why doesn't he tackle him directly without inventing a foolish conduit to him? Really, Peters is an easy mark. Henry doesn't need banderilleros. That much said, the odd thing is that Henry's refutation of faux Henry is actually rather good and en passant he connects a few good ones to Phil's glass jaw. It may be that Henry has at last found a worthy opponent -- in Henry. This exercise in shadowboxing is the best thing that Henry has written in eons. [We are still waiting for Parts VIII and IX of "Nostradamus" Dorschner, which is the worst].
Of course, whether good or bad Henry can't avoid having a couple of "those moments" which add the real value to his writings. He tells us, apropos of nothing, that he was "educated by some of the good fathers that educated Fidel." He means at Belén2. Now this is hardly a ringing (self-)endorsement. Could those "good men" have hit on the same formula twice? I hope not. He tells us that he majored in Economics from UF, which is something else that most people would keep quiet, if only to avoid being renamed "Henry 'Economist' Gómez." All this, I think, is intended to show that he is as smart (or at least as academically-linked) as Peters or even that illiterate "señor Madrid" who supposedly sent him the e-mail extolling Peters. Really, all this is unnecessary. I will gladly concede that Henry is every bit as smart as Peters (and much less dangerous).
At the end comes this, which everybody knows is not directed at the mythical "señor Madrid:"
"[O]n a Sunday afternoon he felt that I was important enough to refute. If what I say is so misguided then why is it so important to correct me? I'm just a man. Why does it seem that there are more and more people out there who think it's important to dissect my every word? Whatever the reason it's flattering to know that an "ignorant" person whose "brain doesn't work well" like me needs to be refuted."
Oh, brother.
[Forgive this interlude: that "I'm just a man" line has me paralyzed again with laughter and I need a moment to recover].
Ok.
[No, I was wrong. One second more].
Alright.
Henry thinks that the fact that he is refuted by others (including and principally me) means that what he says must be important and hence he himself must be important, too. That's one way to look at it, although it's like claiming that you are a great humorist because you keep falling on a banana peel.
For the record, Henry is not an idiot. Or leastwise, not an absolute idiot. An absolute idiot would be absolutely no fun to refute. In fact, only a bully would bother to refute an absolute idiot. Most people are content to let him take his knocks in life without adding to his misery.
No, Henry is not an idiot. He is something much worse. He is a menace. His efforts to be relevant make him a menace. He is enamoured of his own "good ideas" but is unable to see the natural consequences of his ideas. The example that I offered on Sunday is perhaps the best: his effort to "draft" Oscar Biscet to run against Castro for president of Cuba. Yes, that would be wonderful, except that Cuba is not a democracy and Biscet is not a sacrificial lamb. Instead of just presenting this idea, however, Henry actually launched Biscet's campaign on Babalú and offered himself as his campaign manager. All without consulting Biscet. Only the frantic pleas of Biscet's anguished wife caused him to desist before he got the great man killed.
There, in a nutshell, is the problem with Henry: he thinks big but not long.
A good thinker doesn't just need "big ideas" but also the prevision to see them through to their logical conclusion.
That is the faculty that Henry badly lacks.
Of course, whether good or bad Henry can't avoid having a couple of "those moments" which add the real value to his writings. He tells us, apropos of nothing, that he was "educated by some of the good fathers that educated Fidel." He means at Belén2. Now this is hardly a ringing (self-)endorsement. Could those "good men" have hit on the same formula twice? I hope not. He tells us that he majored in Economics from UF, which is something else that most people would keep quiet, if only to avoid being renamed "Henry 'Economist' Gómez." All this, I think, is intended to show that he is as smart (or at least as academically-linked) as Peters or even that illiterate "señor Madrid" who supposedly sent him the e-mail extolling Peters. Really, all this is unnecessary. I will gladly concede that Henry is every bit as smart as Peters (and much less dangerous).
At the end comes this, which everybody knows is not directed at the mythical "señor Madrid:"
"[O]n a Sunday afternoon he felt that I was important enough to refute. If what I say is so misguided then why is it so important to correct me? I'm just a man. Why does it seem that there are more and more people out there who think it's important to dissect my every word? Whatever the reason it's flattering to know that an "ignorant" person whose "brain doesn't work well" like me needs to be refuted."
Oh, brother.
[Forgive this interlude: that "I'm just a man" line has me paralyzed again with laughter and I need a moment to recover].
Ok.
[No, I was wrong. One second more].
Alright.
Henry thinks that the fact that he is refuted by others (including and principally me) means that what he says must be important and hence he himself must be important, too. That's one way to look at it, although it's like claiming that you are a great humorist because you keep falling on a banana peel.
For the record, Henry is not an idiot. Or leastwise, not an absolute idiot. An absolute idiot would be absolutely no fun to refute. In fact, only a bully would bother to refute an absolute idiot. Most people are content to let him take his knocks in life without adding to his misery.
No, Henry is not an idiot. He is something much worse. He is a menace. His efforts to be relevant make him a menace. He is enamoured of his own "good ideas" but is unable to see the natural consequences of his ideas. The example that I offered on Sunday is perhaps the best: his effort to "draft" Oscar Biscet to run against Castro for president of Cuba. Yes, that would be wonderful, except that Cuba is not a democracy and Biscet is not a sacrificial lamb. Instead of just presenting this idea, however, Henry actually launched Biscet's campaign on Babalú and offered himself as his campaign manager. All without consulting Biscet. Only the frantic pleas of Biscet's anguished wife caused him to desist before he got the great man killed.
There, in a nutshell, is the problem with Henry: he thinks big but not long.
A good thinker doesn't just need "big ideas" but also the prevision to see them through to their logical conclusion.
That is the faculty that Henry badly lacks.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Henry Baits Me About Gandhi and Gets Hooked
"God forbid that anyone compare Biscet to Ghandi [sic]. The loons will be jumping all over that one. -- Henry "Economist Gómez, "Prisoner of Conscience vs. Political Prisoner" (comment), Babalú, April 6, 2008
The "loons," you say, Henry?
You mean the people who actually know Gandhi's real history (besides knowing how to correctly spell his name)?
The Gandhi who was a self-professed friend and admirer of Hitler, who wrote to him that he "didn't think he was as bad as the British say?"
The Gandhi who advised Jews literally to "jump off a cliff," that is, commit collective suicide, rather than allow the Nazis to slaughter them, and, by so doing, "give the world an example of moral greatness?"
That Gandhi?
The real Gandhi, not the movie Gandhi?
No doubt Gandhi's advice to Biscet and other Cubans would be to "walk off a cliff," too.
Come to think of it, Henry is Oscar Biscet's "Gandhi." Henry almost got Biscet killed last year when he unilaterally declared himself Biscet's campaign manager and announced Biscet's candidacy for the presidency of Cuba. The problem is that he had not bothered to consult Biscet about it. Biscet's wife had to beg Henry to desist because he was going to get her husband killed.
[Note to Henry: Never bait me, little boy, because it is you who will get hooked].
The "loons," you say, Henry?
You mean the people who actually know Gandhi's real history (besides knowing how to correctly spell his name)?
The Gandhi who was a self-professed friend and admirer of Hitler, who wrote to him that he "didn't think he was as bad as the British say?"
The Gandhi who advised Jews literally to "jump off a cliff," that is, commit collective suicide, rather than allow the Nazis to slaughter them, and, by so doing, "give the world an example of moral greatness?"
That Gandhi?
The real Gandhi, not the movie Gandhi?
No doubt Gandhi's advice to Biscet and other Cubans would be to "walk off a cliff," too.
Come to think of it, Henry is Oscar Biscet's "Gandhi." Henry almost got Biscet killed last year when he unilaterally declared himself Biscet's campaign manager and announced Biscet's candidacy for the presidency of Cuba. The problem is that he had not bothered to consult Biscet about it. Biscet's wife had to beg Henry to desist because he was going to get her husband killed.
[Note to Henry: Never bait me, little boy, because it is you who will get hooked].
Pillaging the Frozen Assets of the Cuban People
They are not the "frozen assets" of the "Cuban government." There is no such entity at present as a "Cuban government." There is only a criminal enterprise known as the Castro regime. It was prevented from accessing the assets of the Republic of Cuba in U.S. banks — that is, the assets of the Cuban people — for 49 years. But most of that money, protected from Castro for decades, is now gone nonetheless because U.S. courts decided, against all principles of international law, to award these assets to isolated American citizens. Cuban victims of Castro were excluded but U.S. citizens were allowed to sue and be compensated from the frozen (but thawing) assets of the Cuban people for the wrongful deaths of their relatives at Castro's hands. These funds could have been used as seed money to reconstruct Cuba or to settle Cuba's debt to the U.S. for the properties and businesses confiscated by Castro (the only "legacy"that Castro will leave to his people along with a $20 billion foreign debt). Instead, the Republic of Cuba's sole remaining liquid assets are being awarded in $200 million chunks to a select group of Castro's victims. This money is available only to U.S. citizens, a decided, indeed, infinitesimal minority, when compared to Cubans who have been victimized by Castro and are excluded from seeking compensation for their losses.
The latest recipients of this largesse is the family of Rafael del Pino, who happened to hold American citizenship at the time of his incarceration by Castro. Previous beneficiaries have included the family of an American pilot killed at the Bay of Pigs; the family of a CIA agent executed by Castro; the families of three of the four murdered "Brothers to the Rescue;" and the jilted wife of a Cuban spy, who was awarded $26 million for her "emotional suffering." Although we sympathize with the pain of all these families (even with the jilted wife) we cannot understand why they are being compensated when millions of actual living victims of Castro are not. That is comparable to excluding Jewish survivors of The Holocaust from compensation but compensating Hitler's non-Jewish victims.
The injustice of it is mind boggling. The daughter of the CIA pilot killed in the line of duty, who should have sued the U.S. government for abandoning him at the Bay of Pigs and not the Cuban people, has been compensated for his death but the actual living victims of the Bay of Pigs, who were also betrayed by the U.S. government and are now elderly and abandoned, are denied access to the hundreds of millions so lavishly bestowed on the American pilot's daughter. Three of the four murdered "Brothers to the Rescue" pilots were U.S. citizens, which was fortunate for their families, because they received hundreds of millions in compensation from the Cuban people's frozen assets. The fourth victim was not a U.S. citizen but a recent refugee so his survivors got nothing. We might add that the other 3 families offered the mother of Pablo Morales a few thousand dollars of the hundreds of millions which they received. Pablo's mother, a true heir of Mariana Grajales de Maceo, refused their shameful limosna (pittance). One of the compensated families has even used the money they were awarded to produce a documentary attacking not Castro but the "Brothers to the Rescue" organization!
Why didn't Castro's American victims sue Fidel instead of the Cuban people? His personal fortune (stolen from the Cuban people) is much larger than the frozen assets of the Cuban people. Because it is difficult to track down Castro's money and very easy to pillage the frozen assets of the Cuban people.
As I have asked previously: Should this money be dispersed in $100 million chunks to the descendents of isolated U.S. victims? Castro's Cuban victims — of which there are millions — have never received one cent of compensation for their suffering. Why, then, should all the monies available to a Free Cuba be expended in compensating the families of victims who happened to hold U.S. citizenship? Is an American life worth $200 million and a Cuban life nothing? Apparently, in the view of the U.S. courts and the American government.
The latest recipients of this largesse is the family of Rafael del Pino, who happened to hold American citizenship at the time of his incarceration by Castro. Previous beneficiaries have included the family of an American pilot killed at the Bay of Pigs; the family of a CIA agent executed by Castro; the families of three of the four murdered "Brothers to the Rescue;" and the jilted wife of a Cuban spy, who was awarded $26 million for her "emotional suffering." Although we sympathize with the pain of all these families (even with the jilted wife) we cannot understand why they are being compensated when millions of actual living victims of Castro are not. That is comparable to excluding Jewish survivors of The Holocaust from compensation but compensating Hitler's non-Jewish victims.
The injustice of it is mind boggling. The daughter of the CIA pilot killed in the line of duty, who should have sued the U.S. government for abandoning him at the Bay of Pigs and not the Cuban people, has been compensated for his death but the actual living victims of the Bay of Pigs, who were also betrayed by the U.S. government and are now elderly and abandoned, are denied access to the hundreds of millions so lavishly bestowed on the American pilot's daughter. Three of the four murdered "Brothers to the Rescue" pilots were U.S. citizens, which was fortunate for their families, because they received hundreds of millions in compensation from the Cuban people's frozen assets. The fourth victim was not a U.S. citizen but a recent refugee so his survivors got nothing. We might add that the other 3 families offered the mother of Pablo Morales a few thousand dollars of the hundreds of millions which they received. Pablo's mother, a true heir of Mariana Grajales de Maceo, refused their shameful limosna (pittance). One of the compensated families has even used the money they were awarded to produce a documentary attacking not Castro but the "Brothers to the Rescue" organization!
Why didn't Castro's American victims sue Fidel instead of the Cuban people? His personal fortune (stolen from the Cuban people) is much larger than the frozen assets of the Cuban people. Because it is difficult to track down Castro's money and very easy to pillage the frozen assets of the Cuban people.
As I have asked previously: Should this money be dispersed in $100 million chunks to the descendents of isolated U.S. victims? Castro's Cuban victims — of which there are millions — have never received one cent of compensation for their suffering. Why, then, should all the monies available to a Free Cuba be expended in compensating the families of victims who happened to hold U.S. citizenship? Is an American life worth $200 million and a Cuban life nothing? Apparently, in the view of the U.S. courts and the American government.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Does Cuba Have the Government It Deserves?
Anon1970 said...
"Do pueblos get the governments that they deserve?"
4/05/2008 3:19 PM
Manuel A. Tellechea said...
I can only speak as to Cuba:
Cuba does not have the government it deserves but the government that the U.S. thought Cuba deserved.
Today as in 1959.
http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com/2008/04/killcastros-family-is-safe-for-now.html
"Do pueblos get the governments that they deserve?"
4/05/2008 3:19 PM
Manuel A. Tellechea said...
I can only speak as to Cuba:
Cuba does not have the government it deserves but the government that the U.S. thought Cuba deserved.
Today as in 1959.
http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com/2008/04/killcastros-family-is-safe-for-now.html
Quo Babalú?
I've made this comparison before but never did the scales tip in RCAB's favor as far as they do today. The last 10 posts here at RCAB have garnered a total of 249 comments. The last ten at Babalú just 33. How is this possible since Babalú is supposedly the "powerhouse" among English-language Cuban-American blogs? There are several possible explanations:
1). Babalú has alienated most of its commenters with its censorship and bannings.
2). Babalú in effect gets more comments than these but Val & Henry only post the ones that agree with or do not challenge their positions.
3). Most visitors to Babalú are googlers whose only interest in Cuba is as a subjet for a school paper. Because they know nothing about Cuba in the first place they would not be expected to join discussions about it.
None of these explanation excludes the other. In fact, I suspect that they all account in part for the fact there are practically no comments hitched to the posts in the ghost town that Babalú has become.
1). Babalú has alienated most of its commenters with its censorship and bannings.
2). Babalú in effect gets more comments than these but Val & Henry only post the ones that agree with or do not challenge their positions.
3). Most visitors to Babalú are googlers whose only interest in Cuba is as a subjet for a school paper. Because they know nothing about Cuba in the first place they would not be expected to join discussions about it.
None of these explanation excludes the other. In fact, I suspect that they all account in part for the fact there are practically no comments hitched to the posts in the ghost town that Babalú has become.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Notable & Optimistic: Cubans Have "Substantial Disposable Income"
"Over time, these measures [instituted by Raúl Castro] will erode the myth that no Cubans have substantial disposable hard currency income." -- Phil Peters, "'Prohibitions" Biting the Dust," The Cuban Triangle, April 1, 2008
What the ever optimistic Phil Peters calls the "disposable" income of Cubans on the island is actually the disposable income of Cubans outside the island, whose remittances to their relatives will allow them to buy those hitherto prohibited "luxury" items which Raúl and his coterie of military-industrial robber barons will sell them at mark-ups of 100-5000%
This is like taking a homeless man from the Bowery (if there are any of those anymore), setting him down on Fifth Avenue with two-bits to his name and telling him that the world is his oyster.
What would his only choice be?
To beg.
The only difference is that George W. Bush won't come at the end of the day to cheat him of his quarters.
This interesting thread continues on The Cuban Triangle with more observations from Peters and me and even a cameo appearance from Longfellow at his most original, arguing that Cubans on the island are much prettier than those ugly exiles. Peters' reaction is the definition of "nonplussed."
While you're visiting the blog , please take note of the beautiful photographs of historic places in Cuba. Peters never takes pictures of the ruins. But, as I said, he is a great optimist.
POSTSCRIPT:
Answer to Phil Peters:
There is some pleasure to be derived from looking at Buckingham Palace even if one does not have the remotest chance of ever living there. I suppose a Cuban feels a comparable sensation when he gazes on a cellphone at the museum where it is kept. Because it is truly a museum and not a store. People go there to look at the future which is somebody else's past. To look and not touch.
This is not enough. It is not even anything at all. "Let them eat cake" is all that these measures (which you mercifully refrain from calling "reforms") amount to.
But those as you, Phil, who have awaited so patiently and long for even the dimmest most transitory flicker of anything, cannot help seeing in this mirage the dawning of a new age when it is no more than a sanctioned revival of an old instinct: the desire to consume, as natural and necessary as any other desire but repressed in Cuba for nearly a half-century.
But consumerism is not enough to break the chains of tyranny as we have seen in China. There, where luxuries are no longer unthinkable, their enjoyment has been conditioned on the acceptance of tyranny.
Even if this Consumer Age were as real in Cuba as it is in China, the assumption should be that it would usher-in no era of freedom but stregthen the repression by making tyranny self-sustaining or even profitable.
http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2008/04/canned-prohibitions-assessment.html
What the ever optimistic Phil Peters calls the "disposable" income of Cubans on the island is actually the disposable income of Cubans outside the island, whose remittances to their relatives will allow them to buy those hitherto prohibited "luxury" items which Raúl and his coterie of military-industrial robber barons will sell them at mark-ups of 100-5000%
This is like taking a homeless man from the Bowery (if there are any of those anymore), setting him down on Fifth Avenue with two-bits to his name and telling him that the world is his oyster.
What would his only choice be?
To beg.
The only difference is that George W. Bush won't come at the end of the day to cheat him of his quarters.
This interesting thread continues on The Cuban Triangle with more observations from Peters and me and even a cameo appearance from Longfellow at his most original, arguing that Cubans on the island are much prettier than those ugly exiles. Peters' reaction is the definition of "nonplussed."
While you're visiting the blog , please take note of the beautiful photographs of historic places in Cuba. Peters never takes pictures of the ruins. But, as I said, he is a great optimist.
POSTSCRIPT:
Answer to Phil Peters:
There is some pleasure to be derived from looking at Buckingham Palace even if one does not have the remotest chance of ever living there. I suppose a Cuban feels a comparable sensation when he gazes on a cellphone at the museum where it is kept. Because it is truly a museum and not a store. People go there to look at the future which is somebody else's past. To look and not touch.
This is not enough. It is not even anything at all. "Let them eat cake" is all that these measures (which you mercifully refrain from calling "reforms") amount to.
But those as you, Phil, who have awaited so patiently and long for even the dimmest most transitory flicker of anything, cannot help seeing in this mirage the dawning of a new age when it is no more than a sanctioned revival of an old instinct: the desire to consume, as natural and necessary as any other desire but repressed in Cuba for nearly a half-century.
But consumerism is not enough to break the chains of tyranny as we have seen in China. There, where luxuries are no longer unthinkable, their enjoyment has been conditioned on the acceptance of tyranny.
Even if this Consumer Age were as real in Cuba as it is in China, the assumption should be that it would usher-in no era of freedom but stregthen the repression by making tyranny self-sustaining or even profitable.
http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2008/04/canned-prohibitions-assessment.html
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Killcastro's Family Is Safe (For Now)
Good news from Killcastro on his family's fate. In Cuba even a broken skull is good news when that is as far as injustice goes.
A great weight has been lifted from Killcastro's mind. Val Prieto should also feel extremely grateful that the evil he wreaked has been circumscribed.
Killcastro quotes what a Spanish priest once told him: "Only the prayers that we say on behalf of others are ever answered." I also believe that is true.
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/
A great weight has been lifted from Killcastro's mind. Val Prieto should also feel extremely grateful that the evil he wreaked has been circumscribed.
Killcastro quotes what a Spanish priest once told him: "Only the prayers that we say on behalf of others are ever answered." I also believe that is true.
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
