"You know what I'm done with pulling my hair and gnashing my teeth about things like this. No matter what anyone does, the exile community is never going to come out of it with positive press. Screw it. We can't control the actions of a few old men, and if the media is dumb enough to generalize, it's their problem. As far as those old men go, in my mind they've earned the right to tell those bitches exactly what they did and more. Don't come into the lions den with a stick, you might just walk out with it impaled in an orifice. Imagine if you had your house, your way of life, your country stolen from you and had to deal with some ugly broad telling you how great the guy who stole all of this from you is. You'd probably react violently too. — Henry Gómez, "CodePink's 'Big' Protest" (comment), Babalú, January 12, 2008.
We may not be able to keep up with the pace of Henry's evolution anymore. He seems to be evolving by giant strides now, like Darwin on roids. Still, we will try. Today we are inaugurating a new feature on Review of Cuban-American Blogs: "The Evolution of Henry Gómez." It will chronicle Henry's tortuous journey from "American-Cuban" to Cuban-American. Our hopes stop there, but he may yet surprise us.
What about Val Prieto? Well, evolution doesn't happen in tandem and some species do go extinct. In any case, Val's recent "vow of silence" is at least as satisfying as Henry's evolution.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
CodePink Protests Posada Carriles in Miami (All Four of Them)
Henry Gómez continues his encouraging evolution. During the entire Posada Carriles trial, Babalú was conspicuous by its silence and its silence was echoed by the other Cuban blogs (yes, apparently silence can be echoed). Although they did not condemn Posada Carriles for the same reason that they didn't defend him (because they were afraid), their failure to stand up for one who has always stood up for Cuba, when he needed their support the most, was really shameful and inexcusable. If you are unwilling to defend the freedom of the most-maligned among us, then why bother to defend anybody else's? If some measure of injustice is acceptable to you, then you are not on the side of justice. If you are content only to fight the easy fights, you may forestall defeat but victory will always elude you.
I wish now that I had answered an e-mail which Henry sent me at the time, asking me if I thought Posada was guilty. I was just too indignant to answer. Was Martí "guilty" or Maceo "guilty?" Only an enemy of Cuban freedom or a complete imbecile would ask such a question. In retrospect, I should have answered him. Perhaps a timely rebuke would have clarified a lot of things for him and spared him many detours on the way to the truth.
Henry got there late but he got there, and as the the old Mexican song goes, "lo que importa es llegar." The ridicule which he heaps on CodePink, the San Francisco-based anti-war group which journeyed to Miami to protest Posada Carriles' freedom (not, of course, the Cuban people's lack of freedom), demonstrates the power of the well-placed adjective in a short sentence: "A pick-up truck draped with pink chiffon and a couple of ugly broads." It also shows, more importantly, that Henry finally got it. Posada Carriles' enemies are our enemies, whether they happen to be in Cuba, Venezuela or Washington, D.C., or obey Castro's, Chávez's or Bush' orders. Posada Carriles represents the right of the Cuban people to fight for their freedom. If that is unacceptable in him, then it is unacceptable in all of us, the struggle is lost and ignominy becomes the birthright of all Cubans in perpetuity. A people that does not reverence its heroes deserves none, and, as Martí put it, "is reared for the jackals."
Medea Benjamín and her ilk, besides being fit objects for Ripley's museum, are the living embodiedment of the moral corruption of our enemies; they literally drip with it and stink of it; you can cover them in pink lace and bathe them in a tub of Florida water and the result will only be more inhuman and offensive.
To hear them speak of freedom of speech, while behaving like performance artists whom you expect at any moment will introduce sundry objects into various orifices, is to experience the banality of evil. The pro-Posada counterprotestors, who witnessed the spectacle of their self-debasement, must have felt uplifted to think that these are our enemies, in the final throes of their satanic carnival (feast of the flesh-eaters).
POSTSCRIPT:
As he did when the racist commenters at Babalú started dumping on Mexican migrants (as if the xenophobes ever made any distinction between a Mexican and a Cuban), Henry came to Posada's defense when Ray and Robert Molleda defamed the old Cuban warrior in the Comments thread. These despicable cowards who wouldn't know dignity if it bit them on the heels as they were fleeing from the duty of defending freedom's champions, called Posada "a liability to the Cuban exile community" and "unstable" because he's supposedly "embarrassed the Bush administration, our congressmen and the late Jorge Más Canosa." In other words, Posada Carriles is not a political whore like they are and like their allies are ("our" congressmen, indeed!). Ziva was the first to point out that we should not abandon Posada because it is politically expedient as that would make us no better than opportunists. Henry agreed: "Posada Carriles is one of the few who has consistently put his life on the line to rid the world of the castro regime. fidel has fucking nightmares about the guy. I'd rather have Posada [on my side] than Cindy Shehan or that Meada bitch." Very true, Henry. May the world catch up with your thinking, or at least the other Babalunians.
Related posts on Posada and Babalú:
Henry Gómez Comes to Posada's Defense (Sort Of)
En Passant
Is Posada Carriles a Hero?
Babaloo's Waterloos: The Miami Herald Speaks for Henry Gómez on Posada
Mr. Prim and Mr. Proper Posada Carriles Is Free
Groundswell of Support for Posada Carriles at Babalú — Dignity Carries the Day
Posada and Oscar Corral:
The Wrong Reporter For the Posada Story
Oscar Corral: The Man Without Principles
Miscellaneous Posada Posts:
An Art Exhibit Worth Seeing
"Miranda Returns:" Hugo Chávez's Debut as a Sponsor of the Cinematic Arts (Chávez Is Also Producing a Film on the Life of Posada Carriles)
Humorous:
From Granma: More Toilet Humor
FLASH!!! African Jet with 114 Aboard Crashes
I wish now that I had answered an e-mail which Henry sent me at the time, asking me if I thought Posada was guilty. I was just too indignant to answer. Was Martí "guilty" or Maceo "guilty?" Only an enemy of Cuban freedom or a complete imbecile would ask such a question. In retrospect, I should have answered him. Perhaps a timely rebuke would have clarified a lot of things for him and spared him many detours on the way to the truth.
Henry got there late but he got there, and as the the old Mexican song goes, "lo que importa es llegar." The ridicule which he heaps on CodePink, the San Francisco-based anti-war group which journeyed to Miami to protest Posada Carriles' freedom (not, of course, the Cuban people's lack of freedom), demonstrates the power of the well-placed adjective in a short sentence: "A pick-up truck draped with pink chiffon and a couple of ugly broads." It also shows, more importantly, that Henry finally got it. Posada Carriles' enemies are our enemies, whether they happen to be in Cuba, Venezuela or Washington, D.C., or obey Castro's, Chávez's or Bush' orders. Posada Carriles represents the right of the Cuban people to fight for their freedom. If that is unacceptable in him, then it is unacceptable in all of us, the struggle is lost and ignominy becomes the birthright of all Cubans in perpetuity. A people that does not reverence its heroes deserves none, and, as Martí put it, "is reared for the jackals."
Medea Benjamín and her ilk, besides being fit objects for Ripley's museum, are the living embodiedment of the moral corruption of our enemies; they literally drip with it and stink of it; you can cover them in pink lace and bathe them in a tub of Florida water and the result will only be more inhuman and offensive.
To hear them speak of freedom of speech, while behaving like performance artists whom you expect at any moment will introduce sundry objects into various orifices, is to experience the banality of evil. The pro-Posada counterprotestors, who witnessed the spectacle of their self-debasement, must have felt uplifted to think that these are our enemies, in the final throes of their satanic carnival (feast of the flesh-eaters).
POSTSCRIPT:
As he did when the racist commenters at Babalú started dumping on Mexican migrants (as if the xenophobes ever made any distinction between a Mexican and a Cuban), Henry came to Posada's defense when Ray and Robert Molleda defamed the old Cuban warrior in the Comments thread. These despicable cowards who wouldn't know dignity if it bit them on the heels as they were fleeing from the duty of defending freedom's champions, called Posada "a liability to the Cuban exile community" and "unstable" because he's supposedly "embarrassed the Bush administration, our congressmen and the late Jorge Más Canosa." In other words, Posada Carriles is not a political whore like they are and like their allies are ("our" congressmen, indeed!). Ziva was the first to point out that we should not abandon Posada because it is politically expedient as that would make us no better than opportunists. Henry agreed: "Posada Carriles is one of the few who has consistently put his life on the line to rid the world of the castro regime. fidel has fucking nightmares about the guy. I'd rather have Posada [on my side] than Cindy Shehan or that Meada bitch." Very true, Henry. May the world catch up with your thinking, or at least the other Babalunians.
Related posts on Posada and Babalú:
Henry Gómez Comes to Posada's Defense (Sort Of)
En Passant
Is Posada Carriles a Hero?
Babaloo's Waterloos: The Miami Herald Speaks for Henry Gómez on Posada
Mr. Prim and Mr. Proper Posada Carriles Is Free
Groundswell of Support for Posada Carriles at Babalú — Dignity Carries the Day
Posada and Oscar Corral:
The Wrong Reporter For the Posada Story
Oscar Corral: The Man Without Principles
Miscellaneous Posada Posts:
An Art Exhibit Worth Seeing
"Miranda Returns:" Hugo Chávez's Debut as a Sponsor of the Cinematic Arts (Chávez Is Also Producing a Film on the Life of Posada Carriles)
Humorous:
From Granma: More Toilet Humor
FLASH!!! African Jet with 114 Aboard Crashes
Friday, January 11, 2008
Ron Paul: "Where's My Hood At, Where's My Hood At?"
Sometimes a man is exactly what he represents himself as. And, sometimes, he is worse. Those of us familiar with Ron Paul's dismissal of the Cuban people's right to freedom, which he considers inferior to his own right as an American citizen to witness their enslavement at first hand, cannot be surprised that he holds or endorses equally contemptible views about blacks, Jews and everybody else who does not subscribe to his insane worldview. Although he was never a serious candidate, the fact that his fellow Republican contenders didn't sound very different from him on most issues concerned us because it indicated that the lunatic fringe of the party was now the mainstream. His exposure as a Klansman without a hood in The New Republic should have the salutory effect of encouraging other Republicans to distance themselves from his views, which are those of a severely disturbed and dysfunctional individual who should be submitted to the Ezra Pound cure before it's too late for him.
Read it at the source:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Read it at the source:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
What Happened to Henry on Christmas Eve?
Did Henry Gómez receive a spectral visit on Christmas eve that changed his heart about illegal immigrants, because I've never seen such a transformation since Scrooge was reformed. He's now written a second post defending Mexican-Americans against the canards of Republican xenophobes, which he now recognizes are the greatest threat to the future of the GOP (and, I may add, this country).
If this trend continues, I may have to revise my opinion of Henry yet again.
I could link a half-dozen posts which I have written condemning Henry's support for xenophobes such as Newt Gingrich; but since I am hopeful that he has repudiated his former position for good (that is, for his own soul's good), I will instead link his latest post at Babalú entitled "Walk a Mile in Their Shoes."
POSTSCRIPT:
Having read the comments which Babalú's readers have left in response to Henry, I will never again be able to say that Cubans are not racist. They have learned racism in the greatest school ever established to teach it. It has seaped through their skins into their marrow. Castro has introduced it to the island's inhabitants and Cuban exiles have been contaminated with it here.
Sad, more than sad, tragic.
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/007028.html
If this trend continues, I may have to revise my opinion of Henry yet again.
I could link a half-dozen posts which I have written condemning Henry's support for xenophobes such as Newt Gingrich; but since I am hopeful that he has repudiated his former position for good (that is, for his own soul's good), I will instead link his latest post at Babalú entitled "Walk a Mile in Their Shoes."
POSTSCRIPT:
Having read the comments which Babalú's readers have left in response to Henry, I will never again be able to say that Cubans are not racist. They have learned racism in the greatest school ever established to teach it. It has seaped through their skins into their marrow. Castro has introduced it to the island's inhabitants and Cuban exiles have been contaminated with it here.
Sad, more than sad, tragic.
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/007028.html
Guess Which Presidential Candidate Was a Mexican Anchor Baby?
Guess which presidential candidate was an anchor baby whose father was born in Chihuahua, Mexico?
No, not Mike Huckabee. Irony is rarely distilled in such pure degree.
No, not Bill Richardson, either.
I'll make it easy for you.
He's a Republican who was endorsed by Tom Tancredo when the Coloradan withdrew from the race in December. You may recall that we observed then that whomever Tancredo chose would be the most xenophobic of the remaining candidates (a tight call for anyone but Tancredo).
Still don't get it?
OK, this guy belongs to a religion which he says is just like any other religion.
That's right. Mitt Romney.
Not only was his dad born in Chihuahua, Mexico, but three generations of the Romneys lived there and all four of his grandparents died there.
Why?
Because the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act in 1883, which deprived polygamists of the right to vote, sit on juries or hold political office; in effect, it anulled their citizenship and made them renegades, subject to arrest upon detection. Diehard polygamists like the Romneys, who believed themselves to be latter-day Pilgrims as well as saints, fled from religious persecution in Utah to the promised land of Mexico, where polygamy was still tolerated. Since the Book of Mormon identifies the Aztecs as a lost tribe of Israel and God's chosen people, the Romneys must have had no qualms about resettling there with their multiple wives and legions of progeny.
Miles Park Romney, the literal patriarch of the family, established his extended family in Chihuahua, Mexico, in 1884. The Mexican government allowed the exiles to establish Mormon colonies there, which strikes us as odd since whenever Americans settled on Mexican territory (as in Texas or California) they usually set up their own outlaw republics and petitioned the U.S. Congress for annexation. I suppose the Mexicans must have thought that unlikely since the Mormons were fugitives from U.S. law who wanted no part of their native land and certainly didn't want the U.S. government to infringe on their asylum.
In 1895, Miles' son, Gaskell Romney, married Anna Amelia Pratt, whose family had also fled to Mexico ahead of U.S. federal marshalls. The couple, who were monogamous, were the parents of George W. Romney, Mitt's father, who was born in Colonia Dublán, near Galeana, in the Mexican State of Chihuahua on July 8, 1907.
In 1912, at the height of the Mexican Revolution, Anna and her son George were granted safe conduct by the rebels and left Chihuahua on the last train to Texas. To rejoin his family, Gaskell Romney had to undertake a perilous journey across the desert, walking hundreds of miles, until finally crossing the border at New Mexico, as migrants from Chihuahua still do today.
George W. Romney, the Mexican-born son of Mormon exiles, was the father of Mitt Romney. Mitt was George's "anchor baby" whose American birth and that of George's father created a bridge of citizenship for him.
George Romney, who became governor of Michigan and ran for president in 1968, was a champion of civil rights and an immigration advocate. His son Mitt would do well not only to recall his father's legacy but also his family's history, the generous asylum provided to the Romneys by Mexico and the protection afforded his family during the most tumultuous period in Mexican history. He should remember also that he, too, was an anchor baby.
And not only an anchor baby, but a Mexican, too. Under Article 30 of the Mexican Constitution, Mitt Romney, as the son of a native born Mexican, is himself entitled to Mexican citizenship and could run for president of that country if he fails to be elected here.
By the way, "Mitt's" real name is Willard.
No, not Mike Huckabee. Irony is rarely distilled in such pure degree.
No, not Bill Richardson, either.
I'll make it easy for you.
He's a Republican who was endorsed by Tom Tancredo when the Coloradan withdrew from the race in December. You may recall that we observed then that whomever Tancredo chose would be the most xenophobic of the remaining candidates (a tight call for anyone but Tancredo).
Still don't get it?
OK, this guy belongs to a religion which he says is just like any other religion.
That's right. Mitt Romney.
Not only was his dad born in Chihuahua, Mexico, but three generations of the Romneys lived there and all four of his grandparents died there.
Why?
Because the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act in 1883, which deprived polygamists of the right to vote, sit on juries or hold political office; in effect, it anulled their citizenship and made them renegades, subject to arrest upon detection. Diehard polygamists like the Romneys, who believed themselves to be latter-day Pilgrims as well as saints, fled from religious persecution in Utah to the promised land of Mexico, where polygamy was still tolerated. Since the Book of Mormon identifies the Aztecs as a lost tribe of Israel and God's chosen people, the Romneys must have had no qualms about resettling there with their multiple wives and legions of progeny.
Miles Park Romney, the literal patriarch of the family, established his extended family in Chihuahua, Mexico, in 1884. The Mexican government allowed the exiles to establish Mormon colonies there, which strikes us as odd since whenever Americans settled on Mexican territory (as in Texas or California) they usually set up their own outlaw republics and petitioned the U.S. Congress for annexation. I suppose the Mexicans must have thought that unlikely since the Mormons were fugitives from U.S. law who wanted no part of their native land and certainly didn't want the U.S. government to infringe on their asylum.
In 1895, Miles' son, Gaskell Romney, married Anna Amelia Pratt, whose family had also fled to Mexico ahead of U.S. federal marshalls. The couple, who were monogamous, were the parents of George W. Romney, Mitt's father, who was born in Colonia Dublán, near Galeana, in the Mexican State of Chihuahua on July 8, 1907.
In 1912, at the height of the Mexican Revolution, Anna and her son George were granted safe conduct by the rebels and left Chihuahua on the last train to Texas. To rejoin his family, Gaskell Romney had to undertake a perilous journey across the desert, walking hundreds of miles, until finally crossing the border at New Mexico, as migrants from Chihuahua still do today.
George W. Romney, the Mexican-born son of Mormon exiles, was the father of Mitt Romney. Mitt was George's "anchor baby" whose American birth and that of George's father created a bridge of citizenship for him.
George Romney, who became governor of Michigan and ran for president in 1968, was a champion of civil rights and an immigration advocate. His son Mitt would do well not only to recall his father's legacy but also his family's history, the generous asylum provided to the Romneys by Mexico and the protection afforded his family during the most tumultuous period in Mexican history. He should remember also that he, too, was an anchor baby.
And not only an anchor baby, but a Mexican, too. Under Article 30 of the Mexican Constitution, Mitt Romney, as the son of a native born Mexican, is himself entitled to Mexican citizenship and could run for president of that country if he fails to be elected here.
By the way, "Mitt's" real name is Willard.
See also:
Mitt Romney: The Buck Stops With the Landscaper (Dec. 6, 2007)
Notable & Commendable: Henry Gómez on the Side of the Angels
"These people" meaning the kids that are being born in the U.S. broke no law. Their parents arguably broke a law though as I pointed out it's not a criminal law, merely an administrative law. The simple act of being here illegally is not punishable with prison or fines. You simply get deported. But we are talking about the kids. Do you want to punish the son for the sins of the father? I think it is the bigotry of a Baptist that doesn't want to see his country overrun by Catholics. Spanish speaking Catholics no less. And, lastly, why a publicly funded windfall? If we did away with all these welfare programs and the education monopoly the only windfall to be had would be that which a person earned in a free country. The problem isn't the immigrants, it's the country they are immigrating to. Besides I don't believe the aspirations of the majority of illegal immigrants is to be live off of the state. That's merely empty rhetoric used by the nativists. The idea that "those people" could not conceivably make an honest living in America and pay taxes and be producers rather than recipients is certainly bigoted." — Henry Gómez, "Despicable Huckster" (comment), Babalú, January 8, 2008
When Henry Gómez expressed his sympathy for Newt Gingrich last year and averred that he was supporting Fred Thompson because Gingrich carried too much "baggage," I gave up on Henry completely. Any Cuban who could even consider supporting Newt Gingrich for president, the father of the "Contract on America," the original Hispanic pogrom, had lost his bearings forever (not to mention his dignity), or so I thought. I don't know what made Henry see the light (maybe I did), but now he has taken a strong stand against the xenophobes who have hijacked the Republican Party. Perhaps he realized that if they succeed in co-opting the party's agenda it will mean certain defeat for his beloved Thompson in 2008. Or perhaps the "Cuban" in "American-Cuban" has, for once, gained the ascendency.
Just as shocking, however, is that certain Babalú commenters, who had not hitherto evinced bigotted tendencies, such as pototo and Claudia4Cuba, have backed Huckabee's insane proposal to denaturalize native-born citizens because of the actions of their parents. Should the children of felons also be stripped of their citizenship as their parents are? How about the children of tax-evaders? Or of drivers with too many points on their licenses? The difference, of course, is that being an illegal immigrant is not a crime in this country — yet. Perhaps Huckabee's next proposal will be to imprison all illegal immigrants. That would be far more expensive than leaving them alone but would certainly prove as popular as deporting them with Republican xenophobes. What would be done with their children then? Maybe they would ship them to orphanages in Guantanamo.
One correction for Henry, though: "Those people" (meaning illegal immigrants) already make an "honest living" in this country and work longer and harder for less than does any other group. They also pay taxes to finance a social safety net from whose protections they (and legal immigrants) are excluded by law and so are already contributors not recipients.
When Henry Gómez expressed his sympathy for Newt Gingrich last year and averred that he was supporting Fred Thompson because Gingrich carried too much "baggage," I gave up on Henry completely. Any Cuban who could even consider supporting Newt Gingrich for president, the father of the "Contract on America," the original Hispanic pogrom, had lost his bearings forever (not to mention his dignity), or so I thought. I don't know what made Henry see the light (maybe I did), but now he has taken a strong stand against the xenophobes who have hijacked the Republican Party. Perhaps he realized that if they succeed in co-opting the party's agenda it will mean certain defeat for his beloved Thompson in 2008. Or perhaps the "Cuban" in "American-Cuban" has, for once, gained the ascendency.
Just as shocking, however, is that certain Babalú commenters, who had not hitherto evinced bigotted tendencies, such as pototo and Claudia4Cuba, have backed Huckabee's insane proposal to denaturalize native-born citizens because of the actions of their parents. Should the children of felons also be stripped of their citizenship as their parents are? How about the children of tax-evaders? Or of drivers with too many points on their licenses? The difference, of course, is that being an illegal immigrant is not a crime in this country — yet. Perhaps Huckabee's next proposal will be to imprison all illegal immigrants. That would be far more expensive than leaving them alone but would certainly prove as popular as deporting them with Republican xenophobes. What would be done with their children then? Maybe they would ship them to orphanages in Guantanamo.
One correction for Henry, though: "Those people" (meaning illegal immigrants) already make an "honest living" in this country and work longer and harder for less than does any other group. They also pay taxes to finance a social safety net from whose protections they (and legal immigrants) are excluded by law and so are already contributors not recipients.
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, January 7, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, January 6, 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.
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.
Friday, January 4, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
