Now at the start of every make-believe radio program, the Valalusians pay tribute to me on the show. Henry, stranded at a New York airport, even phoned-in because he said that he feared disappointing me. It is all very touching in its own sick warped way. They are performing their radio charade for my benefit, which is understandable since I am practically the only one who listens to their amateur hour, enduring that ordeal so that I can keep my readers informed of their latest fibs and foibles.
If you wish to subject yourself to the same ordeal, you can do so by visiting Babalú blog and clicking on the Babalú Radio Hour icon. This week's show contains other priceless Kodak moments, such as Val accusing me, the éminence grise of their show, of harboring "an obsession" about them and George Moneo's lecture on penis envy (?) as the cause of the Cold War, surely an argument that Sigmund Freud didn't live to make because he didn't live long enough.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Val Goes After the Younger Generation
"Ya no más" is 24 years old, which means that he is some ten years younger than Val Prieto was when he started Babalú four years ago. I find this a most encouraging development and I am happy and proud to see that the truth about Cuba concerns the generation that followed Val's, too. I think that it is Val's duty and the duty of every Cuban blogger to nurture such commitment not to thwart it. But Val could care less about nurturing anybody's interests but his own. To merit Val's support you must buckle to his authority. "Ya no más'" mere presence on this blog was sin enough, although this is a "sin" shared with all partners in Val & Co. His "sin" was no doubt compounded by commenting here which made his disaffection with Val's authoritarian vent a public rather than a private sin. "Ya no más" had also had the temerity to add this blog to his links, which others, including Val's cousin Tomás Estrada Palma, have done. I guess one has to be Val's cousin to take that risk, trusting that familial ties will trump Val's fear of betrayal. People like Val, who live always under the apprehension that they will be betrayed, usually are not adverse themselves to betrayal and are usually the catalysts for it.
As a consequence of asserting his intellectual independence and refusing the strictures which Val wished to place on his speech, "Ya no más" was expelled from Babalú's blogroll without warning or explanation, although he had received an earlier indication of which way the wind was blowing when Ziva asked "Ya no más" to remove her blog from his blogroll earlier.
This reminds me of my own contretemps with Marc Másferrer, who was the first in Val's circle to link the Review of Cuban-American Blogs, which originally alerted all the Valalusians to the existance of this blog (where they have moored ever since). Obviously the news eventually filtered down to Val himself who dashed one of his "Marc, why have you betrayed me, buddy" e-mails which immediately obtained the desired result, for Val seems to hold a curious power over men smarter than himself.
I was flattered honestly that Val was in such dread fear of RCAB that he felt the responsibility to "purge" this blog from the blogrolls of his acolytes. But I should not have been surprised. When Val posted his infamous attack upon me on Babalú which was deleted within 3 hours of being posted because it unintentionally cast Val in a much worse light than it did me, I should have guessed that Val far from ignoring the challenge we presented had us in his crosshairs. Mightily did the blog Goliath conspire against our David, but all his exertions against us have had the opposite effect; he awakened rather than stifled interest in this blog.
Of course, it is Val's blogroll, and he is perfectly free to demand from "Ya no más" or anyone else a blood oath before being included there. His policy has always been, as I long ago discerned, that it is good to hang an admiral from time to time because it encourages the others.
In all his actions Val has displayed an absolute disdain for freedom of expression and an attendant obsession with crushing it wherever he finds it. He is the first trans-blog censor. If he had his way, he would even limit access to the internet for his opponents in order more completely to control the agenda and quell all dissent. He does so already on his "island on the net" which doesn't have a bearded dictator unless Val now sports a beard.
Who will be the next blogger to merit Val's retaliation? I think we all know the most likely candidate at this moment is fantomas, BUCL's ambassador to RCAB. The quirky fantomas, who is always proclaiming here that he is his own man and beholden to no one (especially Val Prieto), has not been as active in Val's defense as Val no doubt expects and has even opened a cordial dialogue with "Ya no más" being by nature an includer rather than an excluder. This diversionist tendency does not sit well with Val and will surely lead to fantomas' expulsion from BUCL and Babalú's blogroll. The fact that I have mentioned this may actually save fantomas from expulsion from Val & Co. because such is the power that I have over Val & Henry that I have merely to suggest something for them to do the exact opposite. If I were a dime store Machiavellian like Val I could use this power on my own behalf but I prefer to use it on their behalf, which is yet another way in which Val Prieto and I are different and our positions irreconcilable.
As a consequence of asserting his intellectual independence and refusing the strictures which Val wished to place on his speech, "Ya no más" was expelled from Babalú's blogroll without warning or explanation, although he had received an earlier indication of which way the wind was blowing when Ziva asked "Ya no más" to remove her blog from his blogroll earlier.
This reminds me of my own contretemps with Marc Másferrer, who was the first in Val's circle to link the Review of Cuban-American Blogs, which originally alerted all the Valalusians to the existance of this blog (where they have moored ever since). Obviously the news eventually filtered down to Val himself who dashed one of his "Marc, why have you betrayed me, buddy" e-mails which immediately obtained the desired result, for Val seems to hold a curious power over men smarter than himself.
I was flattered honestly that Val was in such dread fear of RCAB that he felt the responsibility to "purge" this blog from the blogrolls of his acolytes. But I should not have been surprised. When Val posted his infamous attack upon me on Babalú which was deleted within 3 hours of being posted because it unintentionally cast Val in a much worse light than it did me, I should have guessed that Val far from ignoring the challenge we presented had us in his crosshairs. Mightily did the blog Goliath conspire against our David, but all his exertions against us have had the opposite effect; he awakened rather than stifled interest in this blog.
Of course, it is Val's blogroll, and he is perfectly free to demand from "Ya no más" or anyone else a blood oath before being included there. His policy has always been, as I long ago discerned, that it is good to hang an admiral from time to time because it encourages the others.
In all his actions Val has displayed an absolute disdain for freedom of expression and an attendant obsession with crushing it wherever he finds it. He is the first trans-blog censor. If he had his way, he would even limit access to the internet for his opponents in order more completely to control the agenda and quell all dissent. He does so already on his "island on the net" which doesn't have a bearded dictator unless Val now sports a beard.
Who will be the next blogger to merit Val's retaliation? I think we all know the most likely candidate at this moment is fantomas, BUCL's ambassador to RCAB. The quirky fantomas, who is always proclaiming here that he is his own man and beholden to no one (especially Val Prieto), has not been as active in Val's defense as Val no doubt expects and has even opened a cordial dialogue with "Ya no más" being by nature an includer rather than an excluder. This diversionist tendency does not sit well with Val and will surely lead to fantomas' expulsion from BUCL and Babalú's blogroll. The fact that I have mentioned this may actually save fantomas from expulsion from Val & Co. because such is the power that I have over Val & Henry that I have merely to suggest something for them to do the exact opposite. If I were a dime store Machiavellian like Val I could use this power on my own behalf but I prefer to use it on their behalf, which is yet another way in which Val Prieto and I are different and our positions irreconcilable.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Val Visits for a Second Time
Val Prieto said...
Ya no mas,
Your ad hominem attack on me tells us much more about your character than it does about mine, and, it is most probably the reason why your blog was removed from my blogroll.
As for Tellechea's upcoming post about me, what can I say. Im sure it will be pure genius and will be chock full of descriptors like "cocksucker" and such which he has used ubiquitously to describe me and others throughout his tenure as a "blogger."
What disappoints me the most with all of this is that we probably agree on more things than we disagree with and some of us cant see beyond those disagreements and, moreover, opt to air our differences in public, with a complete and total lack of respect towards the other.
So you all can continue to whine and bitch and call me and our contributors names till the cows come home. It only proves your worth and depth of character.
Of course, should any of you suddenly attain some maturity and with that grow some balls and be willing to discuss our differences privately or in person, I'd be more than happy to comply. Till then, please continue with your irrelevance and sepnd all your time bitching and moaning about waht is posted at Babalu while ignoring the important issues that could really use your attention.
13/6/07 3:44 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Val:
First, allow me to commend you on the remarkable forbearance you have shown since you last posted here nearly 2 months ago. In your position I would not have been able to let well enough alone. Of course, whether you responded or not was of no consequence to me. I should have thought, however, that it would have been of consequence to you. Here you would have enjoyed the right that you did not accord me at Babalú: the right to dissent. Just as others here speak what they perceive is the truth about you, so too would you have been perfectly free to have your say about them (and me) here.
For the second time, I never called you a "cocksucker," but I did say that you had been a protagonist in the biggest cocksucking in Cuban-American blog history. A fine distinction to be sure but one nonetheless. What it means is that you are not congenitally a cocksucker, but did on this one occasion engage in a monumental cocksucking vis-a-vis the Estefans. I don't think anyone can or does deny that; you yourself know it is true and are ashamed of it, as well you might be.
It is not a question of "probably;" we do in fact substantially agree on most matters concerning Cuba. The difference between us is a matter of approach. I happen to believe in free expression; you do not. By censoring and booting readers because they happen to disagree with your senseless ultimatums you are destroying the very work that means so much to you.
You know perfectly well that no one has praised you and Henry more than me in the past when your conduct merited it. I will be glad to dedicate the longest post in this blog's history to transcribing that praise if only to show that I, at least, do not have a personal animus towards you. It is your methods that I disapprove of. Nothing more.
I have been waiting, too, for you to attain some maturity, which in your case means recognizing that you, not me, are to blame for this situation. As the instigator it lies with you to take the first step towards dialogue and I am glad that you have done so (badly, but nonetheless). You have my e-mail address, or Ziva can give it to you. Write me. What you say shall remain private.
As for this blog — of which you are the undisputed godfather — it is no longer focused on you as it once was. In fact, I have written much, much more about Henry than I have about you. I hope you don't feel neglected.
The "important issues" are not ignored here. I try to keep a balance between posts such as this one, dedicated exclusively to Cuba, and the brief and mostly humorous posts which I dedicate to Babalú.
I may be irrelevant to others, Val, but I am not irrelevant to you. You still curse the day that you booted me from Babalú and wish with all your heart you could take it back. Let that be a useful lesson to you in future: do not attack without reason because you may find yourself being attacked with reason,
Regards to everyone at Babalú and my fervid thanks for making this your second home (oh, the hours, the hours you all spend here reading my "irrelevancies!").
13/6/07 5:00 PM
Val Prieto said...
Manuel,
The issue, as I see it, is that you have such a high regard for yourself and your opinion that you lack the common courtesy of abiding by the requests of your hosts. In this case, Babalu, specifcally in a post and comment thread where I had asked, repeatedly, that folks refrain from ad hominem attacks on certain people and focus their commentary on the specific issue at hand. In layman's terms, had you been at my home for a gathering, and had I asked you to please refrain from certain behavior, you had three choices: you can respect the hosts wishes and remain - dealing with whatever problem you had with him or her in private, or you could choose to leave the party under your own auspices because you felt you were being singled out, or you could continue that behavior and get thrown out of my house. You opted for door number three - and, even though I felt at the time that - due to the timing of your comment - I may have jumped the gun, I emailed you and I apologized to you immediately. yet you took it as the excuse for an affront against me and the blog. In other words, perdistes la tabla y te insultaste because apparently no one has ever put Manuel Tellechea in his proper place.
Surely, if I were at your home and you asked me not to piss on your geraniums and I went and found relief on said geraniums despite your appeals, You would have aksed me to leave, no?
Its all about respect. I gave you a forum to voice your opinions on a daily basis and never limited your expression of same nor edited your commentary nor deleted them. I asked you one time to please tone it down and you didnt. That tells me that you really could care less about the place you were visiting and the efforts your host went through to afford you said place in the first place.
So that's where we stand. Contrary to your delusional belief, I lose absolutely no sleep whatsoever over this blog or your opinions. I know I have been gracious towards you and reciprocated whatever respect you have shown me. If you chose to continue berating me and attacking my character, so be it. The archives and the associated commentary of my blog and the archives of this blog pretty much speak for themselves.
Some people are petty and some are not. Some people are well manered and some are not. Some people understand that some personal differences need be put aside for a common goal and some do not.
No matter how much you attack my character and my integrity, they will remain in tact, as you display a lack of both every time you attack me with such disingenuos zeal.
So please, continue reviewing our Cuban-American blogs, as your readers with a penchant for reading between the lines and understanding the nature of both you and I, will come to their own conclusions.
13/6/07 9:01 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Val:
If you had sent me an e-mail apologizing for booting me from Babalú this matter would not have advanced further. But I did not receive such an e-mail and must question whether such an e-mail was ever sent. I am glad to hear you admit, however, that you felt an apology was in order.
No ad hominem attacks were made on Gloria or Emilio Estefan at Babalú by any commenter; certainly not by me. However you were petrified that such a comment might be made and threatened to boot anyone who did. A man who apologizes publicly, as you did, for having doubts yourself about the Estefans' motives — doubts that you didn't publicly express — cannot be expected to evaluate fairly the opinions of others. Your ultimatum on criticism of the Estefans and attendant threat to expel those who disobeyed would have been boorish behavior whether you were entertaining your commenters in your house or on your blog. Are you in habit of limiting the expression of visitors to your home? Do you hand them a card upon entering your door which lists the subjects that they are not allowed to discuss while under your roof? Well, frankly, I should not be surprised if you did.
As I recall I was booted from Babalú for agreeing with Vic that not all communists are pro-Castro and not all Castroites are communist. The statement on its face is irrefutable and the name of the Estefans was never mentioned.
The real reason that you booted me was that you resented my presence on your blog for reasons unrelated to the Estefans. These reasons are quite obvious to everyone when you refer to me as "His Superiorness," "His Omnipotence" and "Genius."
You are quite right when you say that I will allow no one to insult me with impunity. This is known as dignity. "Putting me in my proper place," a phrase which clearly shows whom the monomaniac here is, is something which lies much beyond your ken in every way. On the other hand unmanning you is child's work for me. I do it so well that all your friends and enemies gather here just to witness the spectacle. No one in his right mind would believe that you are not bothered by it when you give every indication that you are and profoundly so. And, by the way, I have never attacked your integrity or character: I have only attacked your intelligence or lack thereof.
Some people are stupid and some are not. It really boils down to that.
13/6/07 10:03 PM
UPDATE:
It is interesting to note that the only one who has ever been called a "cocksucker" on this blog is Val Prieto by Val Prieto.
Ya no mas,
Your ad hominem attack on me tells us much more about your character than it does about mine, and, it is most probably the reason why your blog was removed from my blogroll.
As for Tellechea's upcoming post about me, what can I say. Im sure it will be pure genius and will be chock full of descriptors like "cocksucker" and such which he has used ubiquitously to describe me and others throughout his tenure as a "blogger."
What disappoints me the most with all of this is that we probably agree on more things than we disagree with and some of us cant see beyond those disagreements and, moreover, opt to air our differences in public, with a complete and total lack of respect towards the other.
So you all can continue to whine and bitch and call me and our contributors names till the cows come home. It only proves your worth and depth of character.
Of course, should any of you suddenly attain some maturity and with that grow some balls and be willing to discuss our differences privately or in person, I'd be more than happy to comply. Till then, please continue with your irrelevance and sepnd all your time bitching and moaning about waht is posted at Babalu while ignoring the important issues that could really use your attention.
13/6/07 3:44 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Val:
First, allow me to commend you on the remarkable forbearance you have shown since you last posted here nearly 2 months ago. In your position I would not have been able to let well enough alone. Of course, whether you responded or not was of no consequence to me. I should have thought, however, that it would have been of consequence to you. Here you would have enjoyed the right that you did not accord me at Babalú: the right to dissent. Just as others here speak what they perceive is the truth about you, so too would you have been perfectly free to have your say about them (and me) here.
For the second time, I never called you a "cocksucker," but I did say that you had been a protagonist in the biggest cocksucking in Cuban-American blog history. A fine distinction to be sure but one nonetheless. What it means is that you are not congenitally a cocksucker, but did on this one occasion engage in a monumental cocksucking vis-a-vis the Estefans. I don't think anyone can or does deny that; you yourself know it is true and are ashamed of it, as well you might be.
It is not a question of "probably;" we do in fact substantially agree on most matters concerning Cuba. The difference between us is a matter of approach. I happen to believe in free expression; you do not. By censoring and booting readers because they happen to disagree with your senseless ultimatums you are destroying the very work that means so much to you.
You know perfectly well that no one has praised you and Henry more than me in the past when your conduct merited it. I will be glad to dedicate the longest post in this blog's history to transcribing that praise if only to show that I, at least, do not have a personal animus towards you. It is your methods that I disapprove of. Nothing more.
I have been waiting, too, for you to attain some maturity, which in your case means recognizing that you, not me, are to blame for this situation. As the instigator it lies with you to take the first step towards dialogue and I am glad that you have done so (badly, but nonetheless). You have my e-mail address, or Ziva can give it to you. Write me. What you say shall remain private.
As for this blog — of which you are the undisputed godfather — it is no longer focused on you as it once was. In fact, I have written much, much more about Henry than I have about you. I hope you don't feel neglected.
The "important issues" are not ignored here. I try to keep a balance between posts such as this one, dedicated exclusively to Cuba, and the brief and mostly humorous posts which I dedicate to Babalú.
I may be irrelevant to others, Val, but I am not irrelevant to you. You still curse the day that you booted me from Babalú and wish with all your heart you could take it back. Let that be a useful lesson to you in future: do not attack without reason because you may find yourself being attacked with reason,
Regards to everyone at Babalú and my fervid thanks for making this your second home (oh, the hours, the hours you all spend here reading my "irrelevancies!").
13/6/07 5:00 PM
Val Prieto said...
Manuel,
The issue, as I see it, is that you have such a high regard for yourself and your opinion that you lack the common courtesy of abiding by the requests of your hosts. In this case, Babalu, specifcally in a post and comment thread where I had asked, repeatedly, that folks refrain from ad hominem attacks on certain people and focus their commentary on the specific issue at hand. In layman's terms, had you been at my home for a gathering, and had I asked you to please refrain from certain behavior, you had three choices: you can respect the hosts wishes and remain - dealing with whatever problem you had with him or her in private, or you could choose to leave the party under your own auspices because you felt you were being singled out, or you could continue that behavior and get thrown out of my house. You opted for door number three - and, even though I felt at the time that - due to the timing of your comment - I may have jumped the gun, I emailed you and I apologized to you immediately. yet you took it as the excuse for an affront against me and the blog. In other words, perdistes la tabla y te insultaste because apparently no one has ever put Manuel Tellechea in his proper place.
Surely, if I were at your home and you asked me not to piss on your geraniums and I went and found relief on said geraniums despite your appeals, You would have aksed me to leave, no?
Its all about respect. I gave you a forum to voice your opinions on a daily basis and never limited your expression of same nor edited your commentary nor deleted them. I asked you one time to please tone it down and you didnt. That tells me that you really could care less about the place you were visiting and the efforts your host went through to afford you said place in the first place.
So that's where we stand. Contrary to your delusional belief, I lose absolutely no sleep whatsoever over this blog or your opinions. I know I have been gracious towards you and reciprocated whatever respect you have shown me. If you chose to continue berating me and attacking my character, so be it. The archives and the associated commentary of my blog and the archives of this blog pretty much speak for themselves.
Some people are petty and some are not. Some people are well manered and some are not. Some people understand that some personal differences need be put aside for a common goal and some do not.
No matter how much you attack my character and my integrity, they will remain in tact, as you display a lack of both every time you attack me with such disingenuos zeal.
So please, continue reviewing our Cuban-American blogs, as your readers with a penchant for reading between the lines and understanding the nature of both you and I, will come to their own conclusions.
13/6/07 9:01 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Val:
If you had sent me an e-mail apologizing for booting me from Babalú this matter would not have advanced further. But I did not receive such an e-mail and must question whether such an e-mail was ever sent. I am glad to hear you admit, however, that you felt an apology was in order.
No ad hominem attacks were made on Gloria or Emilio Estefan at Babalú by any commenter; certainly not by me. However you were petrified that such a comment might be made and threatened to boot anyone who did. A man who apologizes publicly, as you did, for having doubts yourself about the Estefans' motives — doubts that you didn't publicly express — cannot be expected to evaluate fairly the opinions of others. Your ultimatum on criticism of the Estefans and attendant threat to expel those who disobeyed would have been boorish behavior whether you were entertaining your commenters in your house or on your blog. Are you in habit of limiting the expression of visitors to your home? Do you hand them a card upon entering your door which lists the subjects that they are not allowed to discuss while under your roof? Well, frankly, I should not be surprised if you did.
As I recall I was booted from Babalú for agreeing with Vic that not all communists are pro-Castro and not all Castroites are communist. The statement on its face is irrefutable and the name of the Estefans was never mentioned.
The real reason that you booted me was that you resented my presence on your blog for reasons unrelated to the Estefans. These reasons are quite obvious to everyone when you refer to me as "His Superiorness," "His Omnipotence" and "Genius."
You are quite right when you say that I will allow no one to insult me with impunity. This is known as dignity. "Putting me in my proper place," a phrase which clearly shows whom the monomaniac here is, is something which lies much beyond your ken in every way. On the other hand unmanning you is child's work for me. I do it so well that all your friends and enemies gather here just to witness the spectacle. No one in his right mind would believe that you are not bothered by it when you give every indication that you are and profoundly so. And, by the way, I have never attacked your integrity or character: I have only attacked your intelligence or lack thereof.
Some people are stupid and some are not. It really boils down to that.
13/6/07 10:03 PM
UPDATE:
It is interesting to note that the only one who has ever been called a "cocksucker" on this blog is Val Prieto by Val Prieto.
Anita Snow the Hunger Artist, or The New York Times' "Snow Job"
Let this be duly noted at the onset: Anita Snow's stint as a hunger artist is nothing but a charade, an imposture and a fraud. To all those attributes let us add too unoriginality and callousness to a degree seldom encountered in that most cynical of all enterprises known as American journalism. The idea, of course, did not originate with Ms. Snow; if her mind ever actually hosted an original idea it would likely implode because it is not used to any kind of expansion. No, it was a New York City councilman who decided to subsist on the $21.00 which individual Food Stamp recipients are allotted in New York, which seems almost a kingly stipend compared to the $17.00 per month which working-class Cubans earn per month. The councilman complained that the diet he was obliged to follow on $21.00 per week was "unhealthy," but he did not complain that it was insufficient. A lot of pasta, rice and potatoes can be bought for $21.00 a week, more, in fact, than 5 people could eat in a week. It is not the fare to which the councilman is accustumed — bird food ornately served in bird-size portions at posh restaurants where eating is the last thing on people's minds; but it will keep body and soul together with no great exertions other than opening the mailbox and procuring the food itself, which shouldn't take too long in a city where there is a grocery store on every corner. If the food stamp recipient is elderly or handicapped his diet is further supplemented by "Meals on Wheels," which provides three daily hot meals to the homebound; if a child, he is provided with a Wick voucher for additional foods such as milk, cheese and fruit juices, among many others. In short, everyone who is not a bum gets at least $100.00 more in food in addition to the $21.00 food stamp stipend alloted to individual recipients per week.
If a Cuban had such resources at his disposal from a beneficent state he would consider himself amply and completely provided for. It is only in the U.S. that such public largesse would be regarded as insufficient by a councilman whose sole complaint was that the food gave him indigestion unaccustumed as he was to eating actual food rather than representations of food.
We suspect that food does not play a big part in the life of The New York Times' dilettante of a reporter. Even the meager food basket of rationed items in Cuba — which, incidentally, must be bought and is not given away — is too starchy for her epicurian tastes. There are individuals in U.S. society, starlets, models and ace girl reporters, for whom food is the most significant fact in their lives: it is significant by its absense. To such a palate, or anti-palate, the Cuba ration card is filled with forbidden unprocessed goodies. But those who don't eat and drink with pincers and an eye-dropper will find it almost impossible to subsist on such a meager diet, the provisions of which are obtained only with herculean exertions, though even these are often not enough because the promised foodstuffs are unavailable. Cubans who have no access to dollars and cannot supplement their diet by buying on the black market or in the even more usurous government stores must make do with "monthly" provisions which are scarcely enough for one week.
Snow is keeping a blog diary devoted to her month-long "ordeal." The actual ordeal of Cubans who have subsisted on a government-imposed diet for 45 years has never been reported by The Times perhaps because of the misconception that all Cubans eat alike which is supposed to somehow make-up for the fact that they eat offal.
Before the 1959 Revolution, Cubans were the largest consumers of rice on the continent (and, indeed, outside of Asia) and the third-largest consumers of beef in the Western Hemisphere after the "cattle republics" of Argentina and Uruguay. In 1958, there were as many head of cattle in Cuba as there were people — 6 milion. The population of Cuba has doubled since then, but the number of cattle has fallen to 1 million, which is the reason that beef is not legally sold or consumed on the island anymore and milk is provided only to children under the age of 7 (those over that age obviously don't need it). Cubans, who before Castro imported only the finest grade Chinese rice, now must make do with the lowest grade Vietnamese kind, filled with little pebbles and vermint, which in Vietnam is fed to pigs.
In short, before the Revolution, Cubans consumed 2682 calories per person per day. Based on the items provided in the ration card, daily caloric consumption is now under 800 calories. This has a word — starvation, and starvation should be the subject of Anita Snow's story. Instead, the focus of her story is her own discomfiture at having to conform voluntarily to a diet which she considers sufficient if uninspired. Did I say "sufficient?" No, not sufficient, more than sufficient since she confesses in her blog diary that she was "terrified" by the superabundance of carbohydrates provided on the ration card, so much so in fact that she "gave away most of [her] four pounds of potatoes early on," and, we may add, with no regrets. She even has the gall to compare her case to that of the 2004 documentary Super Size Me whose protagonist ate nothing but McDonald's fare for 30 days. That guy consumed more beef in one month than the average Cuban born after the Revolution has consumed in a lifetime. Ms. Snow, if she is faithful to her alternatively-titled diet, will eat no beef at all in that month and a day's worth of chicken or pork. This deprivation of proteins and "surfeit" of carbohydrates she actually compares to that guy's protein cum carbohydrate bacchanalia at McDonald's.
Ms. Snow, unlike most of humanity, doesn't care for either carbohydrates or proteins. What she is "hungry for constantly is green things" like spinach and lettuce. But she is on a "tight plan" and can't afford her fill of chlorophyll and must make do with sweet potatoes, which she informs us that a friend of hers says "better off Cubans commonly give to their dogs!" (note the exclamation mark). Well, that must be the reason there are no boniatos in Cuba, and why a friend of mine, who recently travelled to Cuba, informed me that she was served a "sweet potato" by her niece which turned out to be a common potato doused in almibar (sugar syrup).
In the middle of her musings about her "predicament" trying to eat from such a horn of plenty as she considers Cuba's ration card to be, she lets slip, or strategically places, quite inconspicuously, what should have been the opening line of her commentary: "During my first week of eating on a food program similar to Cuba's universal ration, plus an average salary for extras..." Well, so she is in fact not eating in concert with Cubans: she is on a plan similar but not identical to the ration plan. So it's a case of apples and oranges (neither of which are available to Cubans). What are the differences between her plan and the plan forced on Cubans by the State? She does not say.
She does admit that in addition to her similar plan she also has at her disposal a Cuban's average weekly salary to spend just on food. Except that Cubans cannot spend their $4.20 average weekly pay on just food, but must also pay rent to Fidel, utilities and, yes, even taxes. She also has her car at her disposal to take her wherever food may suddenly appear in Havana or just as suddenly disappear. But, in solidarity with the Cuban people, she has spurned her car and is following a transportation plan similar to that of Cubans; she takes "taxis that cost about 10 pesos each way to and from the market." Oh yeah, ordinary Cubans do their shopping in taxis.
Ms. Snow is especially enamored of Cuban fruits, which she must think were bioengineered by the Revolution. She raves: "I've lived in Latin America for nearly 15 years, and in all my travels I've never seen some of the exotic fruits I've found in this Caribbean island." Again, please take note of the "some" which is the operative word in the sentence and serves the same purpose here as "similar." She claims that some fruits she has seen in Cuba she has never seen elsewhere in Latin America. Whether that is true or not, it is certainly plausible. By the same token there are hundreds of fruits that grow in South America that are not cultivated in Cuba. One fact does not exclude the other and both are meaningless. And what, pray, does the fruits that she sees have to do with the fruits available to ordinary Cubans? She means to imply, of course, that Cubans have more fruits at their disposal than do other Latin Americans, which is a palpable lie. This is not reporting but disinformation. In Cuba, such a simple thing as an orange is available only through a medical prescription for vitamin deficiency.
Ms. Snow is also a connoisseur, indeed a fetishist, for beans and legumes, and the miraculous Farmer's Market on the outskirts of Havana that she reaches by car or taxi offers her a wondrous variety, though she does lament that she cannot obtain the ham hock required for a recipe she found on the internet. So our little meal planner uses the internet to find recipes when slumming on a diet similar to that of Cubans? Cubans, of course, don't have that luxury because Castro prohibits them from access to the internet lest they learn how the rest of the world lives (or eats). Snow takes Cubans to task for "hating" the dried yellow pea — she means split pea — which are the only ones provided on the ration card. She "discovers" with "a little research" that dried yellow peas "are a favorite in Scandanavia!" (again, the exclamation mark). So now she is implying that Cubans eat better than do Scandinavians because Cubans spurn the precious hockless split pea soup that Scandinavians love. Yes, Cubans do hate yellow split pea having been forced-fed it for 45 years; but they don't spurn it because they can't afford to. They must eat the damn split pea soup even if they hate it because they have nothing else to eat.
But Ms. Snow feels no sympathy for the hapless Cubans. In fact, she considers herself "disadvantaged" compared to them: "The reality is that no matter what salary or spending limit I set (that's another choice she has that Cubans don't), it will not take into account the myriad ways people obtain food here, so when it comes to this experiment of eating as Cubans do, I am at an extreme disadvantage." If she were a beautician, for example, "she might get farm-made cheese from a visitor from the countryside in exchange for a haircut." Really? Farm-made cheese for a few snips from a rusty scissors? Here's an idea: Why doesn't Ms. Snow set up as a beautician and see how many wheels of cheese customers give her; or, better yet, ask her relatives in the States to send her cash remittances, which she says 50 percent of Cubans receive. She doesn't explain, however, why Cubans on the island still depend on the largesse of their Miami relatives to eat 48 years after the Cuban Revolution supposedly freed the island from want.
Ms. Snow reports without questioning it the regime's figure that Cubans consume 3356 calories per person per day [A State Department Report from 1998 notes that "in calorie consumption, Cuba has fallen from third among Latin American countries at 2,730 calories a day to last in 1995 at 2,291 calories a day]. No calculation however slanted will ever yield a figure of 3356, which must be the aggregate of those "myriad [10 thousand] miraculous ways" in which Cubans obtain food which are a mystery to the disadvantaged New York Times reporter.
A Cuban economist pointed out in the 1960s, when the ration card was actually more ample than it is today, that the weekly rations which Spanish colonial law mandated be distributed to Cuban slaves last century far exceeded the Castro regime's rations for its slaves. 19th-century Cuban slaves were alloted 12 lbs of pork or beef jerk (tasajo) a week per individual and a limitless quantity of viands, for example. If their masters cheated them of their lawful rations they actually had the right to sue them before the local magistrate and demand manumission (release from slavery) in compensation. Let's see a Cuban try to do that today.
Ms. Snow says that her Cuban friends — no doubt all government officials laughing at her gullibility — are "taking bets on whether [she'll] make it till July." Don't worry, she'll make it, especially after admitting that she supplements her meals at their well-appointed tables.
http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y96/jul96/15e1.html
If a Cuban had such resources at his disposal from a beneficent state he would consider himself amply and completely provided for. It is only in the U.S. that such public largesse would be regarded as insufficient by a councilman whose sole complaint was that the food gave him indigestion unaccustumed as he was to eating actual food rather than representations of food.
We suspect that food does not play a big part in the life of The New York Times' dilettante of a reporter. Even the meager food basket of rationed items in Cuba — which, incidentally, must be bought and is not given away — is too starchy for her epicurian tastes. There are individuals in U.S. society, starlets, models and ace girl reporters, for whom food is the most significant fact in their lives: it is significant by its absense. To such a palate, or anti-palate, the Cuba ration card is filled with forbidden unprocessed goodies. But those who don't eat and drink with pincers and an eye-dropper will find it almost impossible to subsist on such a meager diet, the provisions of which are obtained only with herculean exertions, though even these are often not enough because the promised foodstuffs are unavailable. Cubans who have no access to dollars and cannot supplement their diet by buying on the black market or in the even more usurous government stores must make do with "monthly" provisions which are scarcely enough for one week.
Snow is keeping a blog diary devoted to her month-long "ordeal." The actual ordeal of Cubans who have subsisted on a government-imposed diet for 45 years has never been reported by The Times perhaps because of the misconception that all Cubans eat alike which is supposed to somehow make-up for the fact that they eat offal.
Before the 1959 Revolution, Cubans were the largest consumers of rice on the continent (and, indeed, outside of Asia) and the third-largest consumers of beef in the Western Hemisphere after the "cattle republics" of Argentina and Uruguay. In 1958, there were as many head of cattle in Cuba as there were people — 6 milion. The population of Cuba has doubled since then, but the number of cattle has fallen to 1 million, which is the reason that beef is not legally sold or consumed on the island anymore and milk is provided only to children under the age of 7 (those over that age obviously don't need it). Cubans, who before Castro imported only the finest grade Chinese rice, now must make do with the lowest grade Vietnamese kind, filled with little pebbles and vermint, which in Vietnam is fed to pigs.
In short, before the Revolution, Cubans consumed 2682 calories per person per day. Based on the items provided in the ration card, daily caloric consumption is now under 800 calories. This has a word — starvation, and starvation should be the subject of Anita Snow's story. Instead, the focus of her story is her own discomfiture at having to conform voluntarily to a diet which she considers sufficient if uninspired. Did I say "sufficient?" No, not sufficient, more than sufficient since she confesses in her blog diary that she was "terrified" by the superabundance of carbohydrates provided on the ration card, so much so in fact that she "gave away most of [her] four pounds of potatoes early on," and, we may add, with no regrets. She even has the gall to compare her case to that of the 2004 documentary Super Size Me whose protagonist ate nothing but McDonald's fare for 30 days. That guy consumed more beef in one month than the average Cuban born after the Revolution has consumed in a lifetime. Ms. Snow, if she is faithful to her alternatively-titled diet, will eat no beef at all in that month and a day's worth of chicken or pork. This deprivation of proteins and "surfeit" of carbohydrates she actually compares to that guy's protein cum carbohydrate bacchanalia at McDonald's.
Ms. Snow, unlike most of humanity, doesn't care for either carbohydrates or proteins. What she is "hungry for constantly is green things" like spinach and lettuce. But she is on a "tight plan" and can't afford her fill of chlorophyll and must make do with sweet potatoes, which she informs us that a friend of hers says "better off Cubans commonly give to their dogs!" (note the exclamation mark). Well, that must be the reason there are no boniatos in Cuba, and why a friend of mine, who recently travelled to Cuba, informed me that she was served a "sweet potato" by her niece which turned out to be a common potato doused in almibar (sugar syrup).
In the middle of her musings about her "predicament" trying to eat from such a horn of plenty as she considers Cuba's ration card to be, she lets slip, or strategically places, quite inconspicuously, what should have been the opening line of her commentary: "During my first week of eating on a food program similar to Cuba's universal ration, plus an average salary for extras..." Well, so she is in fact not eating in concert with Cubans: she is on a plan similar but not identical to the ration plan. So it's a case of apples and oranges (neither of which are available to Cubans). What are the differences between her plan and the plan forced on Cubans by the State? She does not say.
She does admit that in addition to her similar plan she also has at her disposal a Cuban's average weekly salary to spend just on food. Except that Cubans cannot spend their $4.20 average weekly pay on just food, but must also pay rent to Fidel, utilities and, yes, even taxes. She also has her car at her disposal to take her wherever food may suddenly appear in Havana or just as suddenly disappear. But, in solidarity with the Cuban people, she has spurned her car and is following a transportation plan similar to that of Cubans; she takes "taxis that cost about 10 pesos each way to and from the market." Oh yeah, ordinary Cubans do their shopping in taxis.
Ms. Snow is especially enamored of Cuban fruits, which she must think were bioengineered by the Revolution. She raves: "I've lived in Latin America for nearly 15 years, and in all my travels I've never seen some of the exotic fruits I've found in this Caribbean island." Again, please take note of the "some" which is the operative word in the sentence and serves the same purpose here as "similar." She claims that some fruits she has seen in Cuba she has never seen elsewhere in Latin America. Whether that is true or not, it is certainly plausible. By the same token there are hundreds of fruits that grow in South America that are not cultivated in Cuba. One fact does not exclude the other and both are meaningless. And what, pray, does the fruits that she sees have to do with the fruits available to ordinary Cubans? She means to imply, of course, that Cubans have more fruits at their disposal than do other Latin Americans, which is a palpable lie. This is not reporting but disinformation. In Cuba, such a simple thing as an orange is available only through a medical prescription for vitamin deficiency.
Ms. Snow is also a connoisseur, indeed a fetishist, for beans and legumes, and the miraculous Farmer's Market on the outskirts of Havana that she reaches by car or taxi offers her a wondrous variety, though she does lament that she cannot obtain the ham hock required for a recipe she found on the internet. So our little meal planner uses the internet to find recipes when slumming on a diet similar to that of Cubans? Cubans, of course, don't have that luxury because Castro prohibits them from access to the internet lest they learn how the rest of the world lives (or eats). Snow takes Cubans to task for "hating" the dried yellow pea — she means split pea — which are the only ones provided on the ration card. She "discovers" with "a little research" that dried yellow peas "are a favorite in Scandanavia!" (again, the exclamation mark). So now she is implying that Cubans eat better than do Scandinavians because Cubans spurn the precious hockless split pea soup that Scandinavians love. Yes, Cubans do hate yellow split pea having been forced-fed it for 45 years; but they don't spurn it because they can't afford to. They must eat the damn split pea soup even if they hate it because they have nothing else to eat.
But Ms. Snow feels no sympathy for the hapless Cubans. In fact, she considers herself "disadvantaged" compared to them: "The reality is that no matter what salary or spending limit I set (that's another choice she has that Cubans don't), it will not take into account the myriad ways people obtain food here, so when it comes to this experiment of eating as Cubans do, I am at an extreme disadvantage." If she were a beautician, for example, "she might get farm-made cheese from a visitor from the countryside in exchange for a haircut." Really? Farm-made cheese for a few snips from a rusty scissors? Here's an idea: Why doesn't Ms. Snow set up as a beautician and see how many wheels of cheese customers give her; or, better yet, ask her relatives in the States to send her cash remittances, which she says 50 percent of Cubans receive. She doesn't explain, however, why Cubans on the island still depend on the largesse of their Miami relatives to eat 48 years after the Cuban Revolution supposedly freed the island from want.
Ms. Snow reports without questioning it the regime's figure that Cubans consume 3356 calories per person per day [A State Department Report from 1998 notes that "in calorie consumption, Cuba has fallen from third among Latin American countries at 2,730 calories a day to last in 1995 at 2,291 calories a day]. No calculation however slanted will ever yield a figure of 3356, which must be the aggregate of those "myriad [10 thousand] miraculous ways" in which Cubans obtain food which are a mystery to the disadvantaged New York Times reporter.
A Cuban economist pointed out in the 1960s, when the ration card was actually more ample than it is today, that the weekly rations which Spanish colonial law mandated be distributed to Cuban slaves last century far exceeded the Castro regime's rations for its slaves. 19th-century Cuban slaves were alloted 12 lbs of pork or beef jerk (tasajo) a week per individual and a limitless quantity of viands, for example. If their masters cheated them of their lawful rations they actually had the right to sue them before the local magistrate and demand manumission (release from slavery) in compensation. Let's see a Cuban try to do that today.
Ms. Snow says that her Cuban friends — no doubt all government officials laughing at her gullibility — are "taking bets on whether [she'll] make it till July." Don't worry, she'll make it, especially after admitting that she supplements her meals at their well-appointed tables.
http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y96/jul96/15e1.html
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Best of Manuel A. Tellechea
I am going to take a holiday today, my kind of holiday, which involves more work than usual. I am shortly about to launch two new blogs, one dedicated to my writings on, and translations of, José Martí and another to be called The Best of Manuel A. Tellechea. An old friend of mine and something of a wag remarked when apprised of my intention about the latter: "So you intend to digitize everything that you ever wrote?" Well, pretty close.
In the meantime, I want to leave you in very good company. Any of the Spanish blogs which I lately recommended would do the trick, but I have just found another blog (Todo el Mundo Habla) edited by Camilo López which is such a gem that you will do yourselves a great disservice if you don't proceed there immediately:
http://cuba21.blogspot.com/
POSTSCRIPT:
Charlie Bravo at Killcastro has the absolutely brilliant idea, on this the 20th anniversary of Reagan's challenge to Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," to demand that Bush also tear down the aquatic Berlin's Wall that Castro and Bush-Clinton erected around the island. [Babalú also has a post on this anniversary, although it didn't occur to them, of course, to challenge Bush on the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot Policy" or anything else.]
Visit Killcastro by clicking on the Fraternal Link at the bottom of this page.
In the meantime, I want to leave you in very good company. Any of the Spanish blogs which I lately recommended would do the trick, but I have just found another blog (Todo el Mundo Habla) edited by Camilo López which is such a gem that you will do yourselves a great disservice if you don't proceed there immediately:
http://cuba21.blogspot.com/
POSTSCRIPT:
Charlie Bravo at Killcastro has the absolutely brilliant idea, on this the 20th anniversary of Reagan's challenge to Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," to demand that Bush also tear down the aquatic Berlin's Wall that Castro and Bush-Clinton erected around the island. [Babalú also has a post on this anniversary, although it didn't occur to them, of course, to challenge Bush on the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot Policy" or anything else.]
Visit Killcastro by clicking on the Fraternal Link at the bottom of this page.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Cuba y Puerto Rico son...
I was going to breakfast this morning when I noticed about a dozen Puerto Rican youths, draped from head to toe in their flag, waiting for a New York-bound bus to take them to the Puerto Rican Day Parade, now in its 50th edition. I confess that I got a lump in my throat not only because the Puerto Rican flag, the twin of our flag, and consecrated to that fraternal people by José Martí, stirs in me almost the same powerful emotions as does the Cuban flag, but also because I was touched by their simple patriotism. When it comes to patriotism, simplicity is its highest expression.
I am sure that none of them knows anything about Puerto Rico; most may not even speak Spanish and those that do would probably surprise us with their innovations to the language. Few, if any, have visited the island, which would have allowed the senses to absorb everything that one can find in books. And yet, wonderful miracle of Nature and nurture, they feel Puerto Rican: it is what they are and what defines them in a great and notoriously absorbing city and nation.
This is instinctive patriotism, which flows in the veins and to the heart, bypassing all other internal organs (including the brain). It used to be that music, at least, bound them to Borinquén, but now hip-hop has replaced el punto. I suppose that their grandmothers still cook arroz con gandules and they eat it, but that is probably their only tangible connection to an island 3, 4 or more generations removed from their personal experience. And, still, there is their flag, with which they adorn themselves not just on this special day, but every day of the year. Their flag is beautiful, modelled as it is on our own. But there must be some other explanation for their love of it and identification with it; there must be, but, try as I might, I can't uncover it.
Which leaves us with the flag itself as the repository of history, culture and civics, not just the emblem of the nation but the palpable thing itself. Those who burn the flag, any flag, understand this, and those who support their right to do so do not understand it. If they did understand the real significance of the flag they would never support that so-called right.
The history of the Puerto Rican people is relatively uncomplicated as compared to ours. Our star sits in a triangle of blood; theirs in a serene sea of blue. On the island their historians have studied the Grito de Lares, which lasted all of one day, as thoroughly as our historians have the Grito de Yara, which lasted ten years. Every fact of their history and culture is explored and re-explored, and they revere all their prohombres whatever their political stamp, whether separatists, autonomists or annexationists (to Spain or the U.S.). Confronted as they are every day by the beauty of their country it is no wonder they love it; but I believe that they don't love it any more than those youths waiting for the bus yesterday.
God grant that, if nothing else, Cuban exiles have been able to inculcate that same love of country in their progeny born in this country or raised here; for we are in greater need of that instinctive patriotism than our Puerto Rican brothers (with Dominicans, the only brothers we have in this world). For in Cuba, there are vast numbers who hate our flag, who hate our country, who hate Martí. Not just those who have profaned our flag for 48 years but even their victims who react against the symbols which the enemies of our country have appropriated and used to cover their worst crimes. It is my hope and should be the hope of us all that this is a temporary delusion which will be dispelled as soon as our flag again flies over a free country. If it is not dispelled the future will not bode well for our unhappy country.
In any case, all will not be lost if Cuban youth, raised or born here, espouse that instinctive patriotism, always beautiful, but never more beautiful than when witnessed in the young.
I am sure that none of them knows anything about Puerto Rico; most may not even speak Spanish and those that do would probably surprise us with their innovations to the language. Few, if any, have visited the island, which would have allowed the senses to absorb everything that one can find in books. And yet, wonderful miracle of Nature and nurture, they feel Puerto Rican: it is what they are and what defines them in a great and notoriously absorbing city and nation.
This is instinctive patriotism, which flows in the veins and to the heart, bypassing all other internal organs (including the brain). It used to be that music, at least, bound them to Borinquén, but now hip-hop has replaced el punto. I suppose that their grandmothers still cook arroz con gandules and they eat it, but that is probably their only tangible connection to an island 3, 4 or more generations removed from their personal experience. And, still, there is their flag, with which they adorn themselves not just on this special day, but every day of the year. Their flag is beautiful, modelled as it is on our own. But there must be some other explanation for their love of it and identification with it; there must be, but, try as I might, I can't uncover it.
Which leaves us with the flag itself as the repository of history, culture and civics, not just the emblem of the nation but the palpable thing itself. Those who burn the flag, any flag, understand this, and those who support their right to do so do not understand it. If they did understand the real significance of the flag they would never support that so-called right.
The history of the Puerto Rican people is relatively uncomplicated as compared to ours. Our star sits in a triangle of blood; theirs in a serene sea of blue. On the island their historians have studied the Grito de Lares, which lasted all of one day, as thoroughly as our historians have the Grito de Yara, which lasted ten years. Every fact of their history and culture is explored and re-explored, and they revere all their prohombres whatever their political stamp, whether separatists, autonomists or annexationists (to Spain or the U.S.). Confronted as they are every day by the beauty of their country it is no wonder they love it; but I believe that they don't love it any more than those youths waiting for the bus yesterday.
God grant that, if nothing else, Cuban exiles have been able to inculcate that same love of country in their progeny born in this country or raised here; for we are in greater need of that instinctive patriotism than our Puerto Rican brothers (with Dominicans, the only brothers we have in this world). For in Cuba, there are vast numbers who hate our flag, who hate our country, who hate Martí. Not just those who have profaned our flag for 48 years but even their victims who react against the symbols which the enemies of our country have appropriated and used to cover their worst crimes. It is my hope and should be the hope of us all that this is a temporary delusion which will be dispelled as soon as our flag again flies over a free country. If it is not dispelled the future will not bode well for our unhappy country.
In any case, all will not be lost if Cuban youth, raised or born here, espouse that instinctive patriotism, always beautiful, but never more beautiful than when witnessed in the young.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
You're NOT Going to Believe This!
Now, what are the odds of this?
There is another blogger named Tellechea.
He is also Cuban (but not related to me).
He is also anti-Castro.
But he blogs from Spain.
The writing is brilliant and so are the graphics.
(Well, would you expect less from a Tellechea?)
Now, don't trample over yourselves trying to be the first to visit J.A. Tellechea's blog:
http://estanciacubana.com/index.htm
And after you've enjoyed the rich humor there, visit this other Spanish blog where the current state of our country is analyzed with great vision and historical perspective by Camilo López:
http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/estanciacubana.php
Finally, let me recommend to you, also from Spain, the anti-Castro blog Yo Fidel: Blogger en Jefe, "ghostwritten" by José Ferrer:
http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/bloggerenjefe/posts
There is another blogger named Tellechea.
He is also Cuban (but not related to me).
He is also anti-Castro.
But he blogs from Spain.
The writing is brilliant and so are the graphics.
(Well, would you expect less from a Tellechea?)
Now, don't trample over yourselves trying to be the first to visit J.A. Tellechea's blog:
http://estanciacubana.com/index.htm
And after you've enjoyed the rich humor there, visit this other Spanish blog where the current state of our country is analyzed with great vision and historical perspective by Camilo López:
http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/estanciacubana.php
Finally, let me recommend to you, also from Spain, the anti-Castro blog Yo Fidel: Blogger en Jefe, "ghostwritten" by José Ferrer:
http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/bloggerenjefe/posts
Saturday, June 9, 2007
The Babalú Radio Hour: A Review
Henry: I think that one of the things about this whole thing that tell us that we are doing well is how many enemies we make.
George: I think events of the last week bear that out and I think it's very flattering.
Henry: Not just people that might be, you know...
George interrupts with canned recording: "DON'T GET STUCK ON STUPID."
Henry: ... not just them but other people, too, when they start doing blogs writing about you, and they start analyzing everything you write that must mean that we are getting up there.
George: Well, some people... Those who can do, and those who can't decide to create review blogs.
Henry: Yeah, correct, correct. That's the way it is.
The Babalú Radio Hour #14, June 8, 2007
Transcribing this was hell, I will not deny it, and yet it is likely to be all that remains for posterity of this hideous exercise in so-called "blog radio," which, more accurately, should be called an extended party line, for it is not likely to reach many more listeners than the old party lines did, despite Henry's frenzied avowals earlier about The Babalú Radio Hour's increasing audience. From 17 to 23 is an increase but it won't ever chart on Albitron.
So why bother to even answer the little miscreants' attack on us on their make-believe radio show? Well, for one thing, I never leave any attack unanswered, and, for another, attacks like this do not diminish us but only serve to illustrate the stupidity of those whom it has been our unfortunate duty to expose as mountebanks time and time again.
If ever any man was unfit for radio, even blog radio, it is Henry Gómez. Henry is a much better writer than he is a speaker, and as a speaker he could not be worse. George Moneo did not exaggerate when he called this exercise "an hour of our ranting." He meant, of course, Henry's ranting, but I do not think that anyone, even Henry, could have failed to make the right attribution. Every week it's the same: Val & Henry sitting before a mirror, unbosoming themselves of all their puerilities and undigested facts, in a self-indulgent and -congratulatory haze, providing to each privileged listener in their most select audience a higher quotient of insecurity and hubris than even Larry King does, whose shtick has to be spread rather thin to cover his millions of lobotomized listeners.
In this 14th edition of The Babalú Radio Hour, George Moneo substituted for Val, which is always an interesting diversion. Moneo has presence and command of himself, which neither Val nor Henry do, but he sets his intellectual clock in sinc with his confreres', pleasing them rather than his listeners being his object. George is the smart kid who knows that he has to play the dolt in order to fit in with the other boys and having played the part so long it has become internalized, so that he has in effect become what he wanted to be. In any case, whoever Henry is partnered with on the broadcast, it is always better than listening to him solo (does anyone remember the catastrophic "Cuban-American Pundits' Hour" which preceeded The Babalú Radio Hour?)
George, in particular, exercises a powerful restraint on Henry, literally shocking him from time to time with the blog radio equivalent of a cattle prod. Does wonders for Henry's equilibrium and jump starts him when he gets stuck on a word (which is often). The "cattle prod" is a recording that blurts out a cocky "DON'T GET STUCK ON STUPID" at appropriate intervals (which could be every interval). It would be refreshing to be able to note that Henry himself had invented this device to quicken his prodding intellect. A man who knows his limitations is half way there to conquering them (and will probably stay halfway there forever).
I am glad that Henry feels self-important because of my criticism of Babalú. It really is the best spirit in which he could take it, that is, the least personally abrasive. Supposedly the fact that I point out all his foibles empowerers him, and it is my sincere hope that it might. So long as he profits from my advice I don't care a fig if he preens himself upon being the recipient of it. He is indeed fortunate so to be. Let him extract all the validation that he can from it.
Flattered that I take cognizance of him, Henry is loathe to mention me by name, or even in such narrow details as would indicate who I was without naming me. George feels no such compulsion, as he is infinitely more full of himself than is Henry. He cuts in on Henry's ecstasy about "other blogs writing about [him], analyzing everything [he] writes" — which to Henry indicates that [he] is "getting up there" in the world — with a remark that does George no credit, and, I believe, is meant more to take down Henry than me: "Those who can do, and those who can't decide to create review blogs." This from a man who delivers himself of a brief post every two or three weeks which usually has nothing at all to do with Cuba. Yes, George, those who can do, and those who can't should really try learning Spanish. If Henry can speak it (even atrociously) why can't you? It is not necessary to speak Spanish to feel Cuban, but you definitely do lose something. Aren't there some Berlitz records in your monumental collection?
There are some good writers at Babalú and even some good thinkers, especially now that the rolls have been opened. Hopefully they will have the good sense at some point to ask Antonio Rafael de la Cova, a great writer, thinker, historian and proven patriot, to become a collaborator. I don't think that I ever did a greater service to Babalú, not even by creating this blog, than when I forwarded Tony's e-mail address to Val years ago and asked him to get in contact with him. (I had hoped then that Val would pick up history by osmosis since he refuses to read books).
George: I think events of the last week bear that out and I think it's very flattering.
Henry: Not just people that might be, you know...
George interrupts with canned recording: "DON'T GET STUCK ON STUPID."
Henry: ... not just them but other people, too, when they start doing blogs writing about you, and they start analyzing everything you write that must mean that we are getting up there.
George: Well, some people... Those who can do, and those who can't decide to create review blogs.
Henry: Yeah, correct, correct. That's the way it is.
The Babalú Radio Hour #14, June 8, 2007
Transcribing this was hell, I will not deny it, and yet it is likely to be all that remains for posterity of this hideous exercise in so-called "blog radio," which, more accurately, should be called an extended party line, for it is not likely to reach many more listeners than the old party lines did, despite Henry's frenzied avowals earlier about The Babalú Radio Hour's increasing audience. From 17 to 23 is an increase but it won't ever chart on Albitron.
So why bother to even answer the little miscreants' attack on us on their make-believe radio show? Well, for one thing, I never leave any attack unanswered, and, for another, attacks like this do not diminish us but only serve to illustrate the stupidity of those whom it has been our unfortunate duty to expose as mountebanks time and time again.
If ever any man was unfit for radio, even blog radio, it is Henry Gómez. Henry is a much better writer than he is a speaker, and as a speaker he could not be worse. George Moneo did not exaggerate when he called this exercise "an hour of our ranting." He meant, of course, Henry's ranting, but I do not think that anyone, even Henry, could have failed to make the right attribution. Every week it's the same: Val & Henry sitting before a mirror, unbosoming themselves of all their puerilities and undigested facts, in a self-indulgent and -congratulatory haze, providing to each privileged listener in their most select audience a higher quotient of insecurity and hubris than even Larry King does, whose shtick has to be spread rather thin to cover his millions of lobotomized listeners.
In this 14th edition of The Babalú Radio Hour, George Moneo substituted for Val, which is always an interesting diversion. Moneo has presence and command of himself, which neither Val nor Henry do, but he sets his intellectual clock in sinc with his confreres', pleasing them rather than his listeners being his object. George is the smart kid who knows that he has to play the dolt in order to fit in with the other boys and having played the part so long it has become internalized, so that he has in effect become what he wanted to be. In any case, whoever Henry is partnered with on the broadcast, it is always better than listening to him solo (does anyone remember the catastrophic "Cuban-American Pundits' Hour" which preceeded The Babalú Radio Hour?)
George, in particular, exercises a powerful restraint on Henry, literally shocking him from time to time with the blog radio equivalent of a cattle prod. Does wonders for Henry's equilibrium and jump starts him when he gets stuck on a word (which is often). The "cattle prod" is a recording that blurts out a cocky "DON'T GET STUCK ON STUPID" at appropriate intervals (which could be every interval). It would be refreshing to be able to note that Henry himself had invented this device to quicken his prodding intellect. A man who knows his limitations is half way there to conquering them (and will probably stay halfway there forever).
I am glad that Henry feels self-important because of my criticism of Babalú. It really is the best spirit in which he could take it, that is, the least personally abrasive. Supposedly the fact that I point out all his foibles empowerers him, and it is my sincere hope that it might. So long as he profits from my advice I don't care a fig if he preens himself upon being the recipient of it. He is indeed fortunate so to be. Let him extract all the validation that he can from it.
Flattered that I take cognizance of him, Henry is loathe to mention me by name, or even in such narrow details as would indicate who I was without naming me. George feels no such compulsion, as he is infinitely more full of himself than is Henry. He cuts in on Henry's ecstasy about "other blogs writing about [him], analyzing everything [he] writes" — which to Henry indicates that [he] is "getting up there" in the world — with a remark that does George no credit, and, I believe, is meant more to take down Henry than me: "Those who can do, and those who can't decide to create review blogs." This from a man who delivers himself of a brief post every two or three weeks which usually has nothing at all to do with Cuba. Yes, George, those who can do, and those who can't should really try learning Spanish. If Henry can speak it (even atrociously) why can't you? It is not necessary to speak Spanish to feel Cuban, but you definitely do lose something. Aren't there some Berlitz records in your monumental collection?
There are some good writers at Babalú and even some good thinkers, especially now that the rolls have been opened. Hopefully they will have the good sense at some point to ask Antonio Rafael de la Cova, a great writer, thinker, historian and proven patriot, to become a collaborator. I don't think that I ever did a greater service to Babalú, not even by creating this blog, than when I forwarded Tony's e-mail address to Val years ago and asked him to get in contact with him. (I had hoped then that Val would pick up history by osmosis since he refuses to read books).
Friday, June 8, 2007
Monomania Valentina: Or, How Well Do You Know Val Prieto?
Val Prieto at Babalú is running a contest to see who among his Valalusians is best acquainted with his personal history as showcased from time to time on his blog. There are three questions in all that might stump the Sphinx let alone anybody outside of Val's immediate family.
The first question asks Val's middle name (shades of Seinfeld). The next question is who designed Val's wedding invitations (shades of Seinfeld). The last question is what hotel on Miami Beach did Val & his family stay at during vacations (shades of Seinfeld).
The first to answer each question gets a copy of the children's book ¡Oye Celia! A Song for Celia Cruz. I hope Val kept a copy himself. He has to start learning Cuban history somewhere.
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/005358.html
UPDATE:
Everybody is stumped. No surprise. Val has now instructed his readers to use his blog's search engine to find the answers.
UPDATE 2:
His middle name is "Jesús."
The first question asks Val's middle name (shades of Seinfeld). The next question is who designed Val's wedding invitations (shades of Seinfeld). The last question is what hotel on Miami Beach did Val & his family stay at during vacations (shades of Seinfeld).
The first to answer each question gets a copy of the children's book ¡Oye Celia! A Song for Celia Cruz. I hope Val kept a copy himself. He has to start learning Cuban history somewhere.
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/005358.html
UPDATE:
Everybody is stumped. No surprise. Val has now instructed his readers to use his blog's search engine to find the answers.
UPDATE 2:
His middle name is "Jesús."
More Like Tony the Tiger
Marc Masferrer has a post at Babalú on his jubilation at being elevated at long last from a second-class to a first-class contributor at Babalú along with the new class of Valalusians (I guess Marc at least gets seniority). On this solemn occasion Marc was required to choose a nickname for himself and he picked "El Tigre" in honor of his great-uncle the Tigre Másferrer (who used the accent mark even if Marc doesn't). He admires the fact that Uncle Rolando (whom he never met) was a "man of action." Nothing odd here: men of inaction always admire men of action. Marc, however, does not think that his great-uncle was a "patriot" even though he admits that he was on the right side of history.
As the old Italian saying goes: To those Whom God does not give sons, the Devil gives nephews.
Not a patriot? Really?
He must know something I don't (audible laughter in the background).
Not a "patriot" but still a role model?
I guess I could understand this if I had Marc's uncommon sense.
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/005356.html
As the old Italian saying goes: To those Whom God does not give sons, the Devil gives nephews.
Not a patriot? Really?
He must know something I don't (audible laughter in the background).
Not a "patriot" but still a role model?
I guess I could understand this if I had Marc's uncommon sense.
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/005356.html
Thursday, June 7, 2007
And He Will Go Gently Into that Dark Night
It had never ocurred to anyone that Fidel Castro's mind would die before his body did. And yet, in retrospect, nothing seems more obvious. Castro's body has never been exercised in the ways that other men's bodies have by the time they reach his age. He lived and will die a man who never did an honest day's work in his life, the national bitongo, because it took the unceasing labor and sacrifices of an entire nation to support his lifestyle, the nearest to that of a sultan which any man lived in the latter 20th century.
His mind, or, more precisely, his tongue did not live such a life of leisure. It was once calculated — and there is no reason to doubt it — that Fidel Castro has pronounced more words than any contemporary. The value of the words is negligible; their quantity prodigious. Fidel holds the record as the longest-playing record in the history of mankind. His parents wound it up 80 years ago and it is still humming the same monotonous tune, now more "mono" than ever before. Naturally that propitious organ was not a perpetual motion machine. The gears that kept his mouth moving were in his brain. It was an exceptional brain in its capacity to absorb information without the ability to process it. He had some knowledge of everything, or claimed to; but no practical knowledge of anything. He gathered numbers but could not add them; he drew conclusions in the absence of facts and made up facts to support his groundless conclusions. He thought he knew everything when in fact he knew nothing. Therein is the cause of every calamity that has befallen the Cuban people in the last 48 years. For it is better to be ruled by an incompetent who relies on others than by an incompetent who relies only on himself.
His latest interview (and probably his last), which was more carefully edited than The Battleship Potemkin, could not erase, but, rather, confirmed as never before the fact that Fidel's brain has at least kept up with the deterioration of his body, though I believe that by now it has actually gone leagues more on the route to extinction. In his declining years (will it be years?) he is destined to become a waxwork, more or less animated depending on his medication and other unpredictable factors, who will be rolled out periodically for important guests who don't want to miss out on the opportunity to say that they too communed with the great sham. In that twilight area between existence and non-existence he will quietly pass to the other life, or, for him, the perpetual void, unnoticed and mostly unlamented. We might almost regard this slow decline as poetic justice of a kind except that for every additional moment that Fidel languishes on earth, there are thousands of innocent men in his jails who suffer that many more minutes of unremitting suffering. If it necessary to end their suffering by wishing an end to his, then there is nothing that we can do but to wish him a quick release.
We will not know the satisfaction that the Romanians experienced when Ceausescu was terminated; nor shall Christmas bring the pleasant memory of our deliverance. Castro has eluded justice as he eluded responsibility for his acts all his life. We may hope that divine providence will settle accounts, but having been so indulgent with him thus far at our expense, I must really wonder what punishment could even come close to fitting his crimes.
On top of all his other shields — material or diabolitical — Fidel now has the additional one of an addled brain. No excuse or concession is to be denied him. His charmed life, with the common mishaps of an ordinary man and the compensations of those born to the purple in antique times, will end placidly; for he has no conscience and now probably does not even have the full recollection of his crimes.
There is a great unspoken secret among the survivors of the Holocaust; it seems almost indecorous to say and so it is seldom said. But the truth is that the Jews who did not lose their lives lost their faith in the Holocaust and it seems likely that such is and will be the reaction of many of our countrymen to his 54 years of inflicting pain and misery on our people without even a minute of retribution.
His mind, or, more precisely, his tongue did not live such a life of leisure. It was once calculated — and there is no reason to doubt it — that Fidel Castro has pronounced more words than any contemporary. The value of the words is negligible; their quantity prodigious. Fidel holds the record as the longest-playing record in the history of mankind. His parents wound it up 80 years ago and it is still humming the same monotonous tune, now more "mono" than ever before. Naturally that propitious organ was not a perpetual motion machine. The gears that kept his mouth moving were in his brain. It was an exceptional brain in its capacity to absorb information without the ability to process it. He had some knowledge of everything, or claimed to; but no practical knowledge of anything. He gathered numbers but could not add them; he drew conclusions in the absence of facts and made up facts to support his groundless conclusions. He thought he knew everything when in fact he knew nothing. Therein is the cause of every calamity that has befallen the Cuban people in the last 48 years. For it is better to be ruled by an incompetent who relies on others than by an incompetent who relies only on himself.
His latest interview (and probably his last), which was more carefully edited than The Battleship Potemkin, could not erase, but, rather, confirmed as never before the fact that Fidel's brain has at least kept up with the deterioration of his body, though I believe that by now it has actually gone leagues more on the route to extinction. In his declining years (will it be years?) he is destined to become a waxwork, more or less animated depending on his medication and other unpredictable factors, who will be rolled out periodically for important guests who don't want to miss out on the opportunity to say that they too communed with the great sham. In that twilight area between existence and non-existence he will quietly pass to the other life, or, for him, the perpetual void, unnoticed and mostly unlamented. We might almost regard this slow decline as poetic justice of a kind except that for every additional moment that Fidel languishes on earth, there are thousands of innocent men in his jails who suffer that many more minutes of unremitting suffering. If it necessary to end their suffering by wishing an end to his, then there is nothing that we can do but to wish him a quick release.
We will not know the satisfaction that the Romanians experienced when Ceausescu was terminated; nor shall Christmas bring the pleasant memory of our deliverance. Castro has eluded justice as he eluded responsibility for his acts all his life. We may hope that divine providence will settle accounts, but having been so indulgent with him thus far at our expense, I must really wonder what punishment could even come close to fitting his crimes.
On top of all his other shields — material or diabolitical — Fidel now has the additional one of an addled brain. No excuse or concession is to be denied him. His charmed life, with the common mishaps of an ordinary man and the compensations of those born to the purple in antique times, will end placidly; for he has no conscience and now probably does not even have the full recollection of his crimes.
There is a great unspoken secret among the survivors of the Holocaust; it seems almost indecorous to say and so it is seldom said. But the truth is that the Jews who did not lose their lives lost their faith in the Holocaust and it seems likely that such is and will be the reaction of many of our countrymen to his 54 years of inflicting pain and misery on our people without even a minute of retribution.
Babaloo's "Boo Boos"
In a brief but telling post, Henry Gómez, a grown man, supposedly, confessed that he made a "boo-boo."
Henry has made us seriously consider whether we should change the name of one of this blog's favorite departments from "Babaloo's Waterloos" to "Babaloo's Boo Boos." Really, we cannot bring ourselves to choose between them, so we have decided to use "Babaloo's Waterloos" for its biggest blunders and "Babaloo's Boo Boos" for lesser faux pas. Such as this.
And so with a smile on our face and no malice in our heart for those who fight the good fight against Castro — whether fools or not — the Review of Cuban-American Blogs marks its 100th post.
Seems like only yesterday, doesn't it, Siboney Val?
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/005342.html
Henry has made us seriously consider whether we should change the name of one of this blog's favorite departments from "Babaloo's Waterloos" to "Babaloo's Boo Boos." Really, we cannot bring ourselves to choose between them, so we have decided to use "Babaloo's Waterloos" for its biggest blunders and "Babaloo's Boo Boos" for lesser faux pas. Such as this.
And so with a smile on our face and no malice in our heart for those who fight the good fight against Castro — whether fools or not — the Review of Cuban-American Blogs marks its 100th post.
Seems like only yesterday, doesn't it, Siboney Val?
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/005342.html
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
New Times Names Oscar Corral "Best Commie Spy" in "Best of 2007" Issue
"Honrar, honra" (In honoring others we honor ourselves) said our great Martí, and before him the Golden Age Spanish writer Gracián. Well, there really is very little room for elegant variation in a quotation consisting of two words, and when Martí said it, the quote caught on.
In any case, I don't think the quote is applicable in every instance. For example, this one. Still I would be remiss if I did not congratulate Oscar Corral for the dubious honor that The Miami New Times has seen fit to bestow on him in its "Best of 2007" issue, where he was named Best Commie Spy. But although I rejoice that Oscar has been recognized for something other than as the worst reporter on The Miami Herald, I am not altogether sure that he is deserving of this Award. The best commie spy, of course, would be the one who doesn't blow his cover, that is, someone who has worked at The Herald as a Castro mole for years without ever raising any suspicions. Now, Oscar has raised a whirlwind of suspicions since he arrived at The Herald. If he were a commie spy, he is not the Best, but the best known commie spy on The Miami Herald.
However, I have on more than one occasion defended Corral against the charge that he was a Castroite spy on the grounds that he is simply not smart enough and Castro's spymasters are too smart to recruit him. I will stand by that position until proven wrong, and I am by no means adverse to the idea of being proven wrong in this case.
If Western Union telegrams had not been discontinued I would have sent him one and had it delivered ceremoniously at The Herald. But since I couldn't, I have personally left my congratulations at Miami's Cuban Connection, and I note that my erstwhile ally in the Miami Moonlighters' case Henry Gómez was the first to congratulate Oscar.
Here is my own congratulations:
I suppose I must validate your Award with my own congratulations, which I offer most sincerely. For me, the New Times' intended sarcasm is nothing of the kind, but a true testament to all that you have done over the last year to foster Castroism by misrepresenting and defaming his enemies.
While I am at it, let me extend my congratulations also to Critical Miami and Stuck on the Palmetto for their respective New Times Awards. All three blogs were former haunts of mine and I remember them all with fondness.
Finally, I want to promise Mambo Watcher that I will do everything in my power to make sure that he is the 2008 recipient of New Times' Best Commie Spy Award, so help me God.
http://bestof.miaminewtimes.com/bestof/award.php?award=483433
POSTSCRIPT:
Oscar's apologists have come to his defense at Miami's Cuban Connection. Curiously, they don't attack me but Val & Henry. Victor offers this gem of personal invective:
"Say it ain't so Oscar, say it ain't so. I didn't know Fidel had agents in The Herald...Will it ever stop?... I say give him to Val the Impaler of Truth over at Babalu Aye's blog... He and his Prince of Fat Henry can 'slice him up real good' over at the next 'man camp event.'"
Whatever his political shortcomings his Shakespearean allusions show that this Victor has an education, though "Prince Hamlet" would have been better.
In any case, I don't think the quote is applicable in every instance. For example, this one. Still I would be remiss if I did not congratulate Oscar Corral for the dubious honor that The Miami New Times has seen fit to bestow on him in its "Best of 2007" issue, where he was named Best Commie Spy. But although I rejoice that Oscar has been recognized for something other than as the worst reporter on The Miami Herald, I am not altogether sure that he is deserving of this Award. The best commie spy, of course, would be the one who doesn't blow his cover, that is, someone who has worked at The Herald as a Castro mole for years without ever raising any suspicions. Now, Oscar has raised a whirlwind of suspicions since he arrived at The Herald. If he were a commie spy, he is not the Best, but the best known commie spy on The Miami Herald.
However, I have on more than one occasion defended Corral against the charge that he was a Castroite spy on the grounds that he is simply not smart enough and Castro's spymasters are too smart to recruit him. I will stand by that position until proven wrong, and I am by no means adverse to the idea of being proven wrong in this case.
If Western Union telegrams had not been discontinued I would have sent him one and had it delivered ceremoniously at The Herald. But since I couldn't, I have personally left my congratulations at Miami's Cuban Connection, and I note that my erstwhile ally in the Miami Moonlighters' case Henry Gómez was the first to congratulate Oscar.
Here is my own congratulations:
I suppose I must validate your Award with my own congratulations, which I offer most sincerely. For me, the New Times' intended sarcasm is nothing of the kind, but a true testament to all that you have done over the last year to foster Castroism by misrepresenting and defaming his enemies.
While I am at it, let me extend my congratulations also to Critical Miami and Stuck on the Palmetto for their respective New Times Awards. All three blogs were former haunts of mine and I remember them all with fondness.
Finally, I want to promise Mambo Watcher that I will do everything in my power to make sure that he is the 2008 recipient of New Times' Best Commie Spy Award, so help me God.
http://bestof.miaminewtimes.com/bestof/award.php?award=483433
POSTSCRIPT:
Oscar's apologists have come to his defense at Miami's Cuban Connection. Curiously, they don't attack me but Val & Henry. Victor offers this gem of personal invective:
"Say it ain't so Oscar, say it ain't so. I didn't know Fidel had agents in The Herald...Will it ever stop?... I say give him to Val the Impaler of Truth over at Babalu Aye's blog... He and his Prince of Fat Henry can 'slice him up real good' over at the next 'man camp event.'"
Whatever his political shortcomings his Shakespearean allusions show that this Victor has an education, though "Prince Hamlet" would have been better.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
The "Today Show" Goes to Cuba
Matt Lauer Visits "America's Mysterious, Friendly Neighbors to the South" After 18-Month Quarantine
With Morro Castle as a backdrop, Matt Lauer remarked that the 16th century fortress at the entrance to Havana Harbor had been built to protect the city from pirates, and not skipping a beat, he introduced the subject of the U.S. trade embargo, leaving his viewers to make the implied connection. Because of the embargo (not, of course, the Communist system or the Castros' own venality), wages are low in Cuba (50 cents per day), but that's more than enough for Castro's hapless subjects, because, according to Lauer, there is low unemployment and no homelessness in Cuba, its people pay no taxes but still enjoy the boons of a high literacy rate and free healthcare. Where have we heard that before? Yes, on every U.S. television program ever broadcast from Cuba or documentary filmed there. So much for the expectation that many nourished about more open and less biased coverage of Cuba in the wake of the transition to nowhere.
After commercials, interruptions and a running sideshow of (non-Cuban) freaks, there was a brief interview with a 17-year-old guitar player who asserted that the youth of Cuba are interested in music, not politics. But how could it be otherwise? The Castro regime fulfills all their material needs, leaving them all the time in the world to indulge their artistic pursuits. Later, Lauer would assure us that there is indeed "creative freedom" in Cuba at least in the arts. Matt has obviously never heart of the Padilla trial or Castro's injunction to Cuban writers and artists that "everything was possible within the Revolution but nothing outside it." But who would want to be outside the Revolution anyway? Certainly Lauer gives us no reason to justify such a "snobbish" attitude, and so it must naturally follow that dissent doesn't exist in Cuba; and since dissent doesn't exist there, then it follows naturally too that there must be no dissenters, which, explains, of course, their complete absence from the show.
Next Matt briefly interviews a very haggard-looking Ricardo Alarcón and asks him, "Who is in charge in Cuba today." Finally, a question worth asking; but not, however, a question that Alarcón thinks worth answering and so he doesn't. Lauer, of course, does not take him to task for his evasion, but accepts Alarcon's assurances that everything is running smoothly in Cuba regardless of whom is in charge.
After blaming the trade embargo for Cuba's collapsing infrastructure (as he will for everything negative which he observes on the island), Lauer has a brief interview with Marion Berry. No, not the cocaine sniffing former mayor of Washington DC, but the (white) congressman from Arkansas of the same name. Berry is a rice farmer. His government subsidies are obviously not enough for him. He wants to sell his rice to Cuba, which Lauer noted the U.S. already supplies with 10 percent of its rice imports. That 10 percent covers the needs of Cuba's elite. The other 90 percent consume a rice that has such natural additives as pebbles, talc, dead insects and their excrementa. This rice is imported from Vietnam where it is usually fed to hogs. Still it's good enough for the Cuban people, who before the Revolution imported only China's highest grade rice and consumed more of it than any other people on earth.
After a teaser about a certain Rivero family that leads nowhere, Matt next has the most offensive exchange in the show with correspondent Andrea Mitchell, whose hatred for Cuban exiles is at least as rabid as the unlamented Katie Couric's (is that a job requirement for female reporters in the MSM?). She tells us that the U.S. and Cuba "have a shared interest and are working quietly together to make sure that [in the event of any change in Cuba] Miami people don't hit the boats and Cuban people don't hit the boats." And this is true: the U.S. and Cuba cooperate like allies when it comes to maintaining the status quo in Cuba or curbing the exiles' impulse to change it. In the view of the U.S. and Communist Cuba, Cuban exiles are not Cubans anymore; they are just "Miami people." And what do these Miami people want in Cuba? Is it to rescue their relatives as they did in the Mariel exodus? No, silly. The "Miami people" want their property back. Lauer observes that it is this fear of the "Miami people" which may be keeping Castro in power in Cuba, not, of course, the regime's apparatus of repression. The "Miami people," we might observe, though Lauer does not, have sent more in cash remittances to Cuba over the last 25 years than all the island's properties are worth.
Matt then proceeded to make what is undoubtedly the most telling remark in all his reportage on Cuba -- he referred to the trade embargo as a "blockade" as in "Cuba has persevered in the face of challenges [including] the blockade." This was no doubt a concession to "balanced reporting." You see, by interchangeably using those terms, you demonstrate your impartiality. No you don't. What you demonstrate is that you don't know the meaning of either a "blockade" or an "embargo."
In the bad old days of the Soviet Union, when Stalin made an an unexpected and incredible statement which took everybody's breath away, he usually prefixed it with "As is well-known..." Well, Matt used the same device when he declared with no hint of sarcasm: "We [Americans] know an awful lot about the history of Cuba." He then proceeded to tell us what Americans know (or at least believe they know): "Havana was a playground for tourists and gangsters. It was a period captured in the classic film The Godfather [II]." This was a refreshing admission that Coppola's toxic film is the source for everything that Americans know about pre-Castro Cuba, and, of course, it is a fictional representation which in turn derives its "historical facts" from the Castro regime's own hackneyed propaganda.
More Cuban "history" follows: After the fall of the Soviet Union, Castro called for an "organic revolution," and, as if by magic, farmers' markets sprung up all over the island to supply the deficiencies of "The Special Period." So the fall of Communism actually "benefitted" the Cuban people materially just as every other calamity that has befallen them in the 48 years of Castro's rule. King Midas should have been that good.
We next learn that Cuban grocery stores are filled with American goods. To prove it, Matt's goofer shows bottles of Hunt's Ketchup and Windex purchased in a Cuban store for an extravagant amount, which seems altogether reasonable to Matt, who obviously doesn't do his own shopping. However, the balding wunderkind failed to make the connection that the average Cuban worker earning 50 cents per day (according to him) would have to labor for more than two weeks to buy that $8.00 bottle of ketchup.
And what does he conclude from that $8.00 bottle of ketchup: "A lot of people think that the time has come to end the embargo." Why? So that the Cuban people can buy that $8.00 bottle of ketchup from American capitalists rather than from Fidel? It is wily Fidel who wants the embargo to stay in place, Lauer reasons, supposedly because he gets to sell the people $8.00 bottles of ketchup. So let's thwart Fidel and lift the embargo and Cubans will be introduced to the $7.99 bottle of ketchup.
Next came a debate of sorts -- you know, the kind when the debaters can't address each other directly -- between Sen. Bob Menéndez (D-NJ) and Kirby Jones of the U.S./Cuba Trade Association. Needless to say, Menéndez annihilated Kirby even though Lasuer cut him off when he mentioned jailed political dissidents (the only time they were mentioned in the show). Perhaps Lauer thought that because Sen. Menéndez is a Democrat he would be less "volatile" than Ileana or the Díaz-Balarts. He was wrong. Menendez is a cool character. He didn't miss the opportunity to praise Clinton's Cuba policy, but cut no slack to the opponents of the embargo or to the Castro regime. Kirby Jones, sitting beside Matt, surprised us with the most honest answer that any opponent of the embargo has ever given regarding it: "If this were a worldwide embargo, it would be another thing." Yes, indeed. It would most assuredly be "another thing." The "thing" it would be and the result it would produce can be seen in South Africa, where apartheid was flushed out precisely because all the world's nations banded together to repudiate it through a worldwide embargo. Even the Vatican, a constant critic of the embargo on Cuba, supported the embargo on South Africa.
And speaking of apartheid, Matt acknowledged that it does exist in Cuba. For Matt, however, "tourism apartheid" did not consist of excluding Cubans from hotels, beaches and other facilities which are reserved for foreigners, but, rather, he defined apartheid not as segregation of the natives, but the preference given to maintaining tourist sites in a better state of repair than the buildings inhabited by Cubans. So, in other words, if Castro only handed out paint and brushes, "apartheid" as defined by Lauer would disappear in Cuba.
But even if Castro can't give the Cuban people paint and brushes, he has given them games, that is, baseball, boxing and ballet (of course, Castro introduced all these to Cuba). In fact, "no country in the world has a greater appreciation for the arts than Cuba." This is one of Matt's many elliptical statements. Allow me to complete it: Nor does any country on earth control the arts and the artists as does Communist Cuba; nor does any country exploit artists more, cheat artists more or suppress artistic expression more.
Speaking of the Cubans' love for baseball, Matt remarks that as soon as a boy is born in Cuba his parents want to get him a baseball bat and mitt. Another elliptical statement: Matt does not mention that the average Cuban parent will not be able to satisfy that desire unless he has relatives in Miami.
Matt next extolls Cuban music with all the usual clichés. While interviewing Juan de Marcus, the Cuban producer of the Buena Vista Social Club, Matt actually declares "There is still creative freedom here [in Cuba] for artists." But most of the artists featured in the BVSC had been buried alive by the regime for 40 years and forced to work as laborers and shoeshine boys before an American record producer rescued them from oblivion and made himself and Castro another fortune (the artists themselves receiving little or nothing) from the vaunted sale of 12 million CDs. Marcus, not to be outdone, delivers himself of ths pearl: "Music is like the food for Cuba." Not just like it, but most of it. There followed a performance by Los Van-Van which was my cue to empty my bladder, so I can't critique it.
And, finally, after several plugs, comes Elián, or, rather, he doesn't. He's 13 now and must be going through that teenage "angst" which is best not broadcast. In fact, his angst must out-angst all other adolescent angst. Matt does acknowledge that Elián is a propaganda tool, or, as Matt puts it, "he is being groomed for political office in Cuba." When the host in New York observes that Elián's Miami family has not been allowed to see him since he was returned to Cuba 7 years ago, Matt smirked and actually gobbled, the only word I could find to describe his facial and neck contorsions, which were necessary to prevent him from blurting out what he was really thinking: "The Miami relatives and all Cuban exiles can go to hell." Instead, after he regained his compusure, Matt blamed the distance between Cubans on the island and in exile for this separation. Of course, Fidel, who engineered it, and Juan González, who complied with Castro's orders, are not to blame. Elián's two "fathers" and scary "Uncle" Raúl had nothing to do with it. Matt even told a bold-faced lie when he asserted that Elián's father sued and won custody in U.S. courts. The fact is that the Clinton administration preempted the trial and subverted the justice system by kidnapping Elián at gunpoint and forcibly repatriating him to his "extended family" in Cuba.
The program concludes with Matt being presented with a pure Irish linen guayabera, the kind that was last available in Cuba at El Encanto and which no Cuban can afford or wears today except the capos of the regime. He accepts it with very little graciousness, remarking that it is likely to be seized by "the trade embargo people" on his return to the U.S. owing to that bad, bad embargo.
With Morro Castle as a backdrop, Matt Lauer remarked that the 16th century fortress at the entrance to Havana Harbor had been built to protect the city from pirates, and not skipping a beat, he introduced the subject of the U.S. trade embargo, leaving his viewers to make the implied connection. Because of the embargo (not, of course, the Communist system or the Castros' own venality), wages are low in Cuba (50 cents per day), but that's more than enough for Castro's hapless subjects, because, according to Lauer, there is low unemployment and no homelessness in Cuba, its people pay no taxes but still enjoy the boons of a high literacy rate and free healthcare. Where have we heard that before? Yes, on every U.S. television program ever broadcast from Cuba or documentary filmed there. So much for the expectation that many nourished about more open and less biased coverage of Cuba in the wake of the transition to nowhere.
After commercials, interruptions and a running sideshow of (non-Cuban) freaks, there was a brief interview with a 17-year-old guitar player who asserted that the youth of Cuba are interested in music, not politics. But how could it be otherwise? The Castro regime fulfills all their material needs, leaving them all the time in the world to indulge their artistic pursuits. Later, Lauer would assure us that there is indeed "creative freedom" in Cuba at least in the arts. Matt has obviously never heart of the Padilla trial or Castro's injunction to Cuban writers and artists that "everything was possible within the Revolution but nothing outside it." But who would want to be outside the Revolution anyway? Certainly Lauer gives us no reason to justify such a "snobbish" attitude, and so it must naturally follow that dissent doesn't exist in Cuba; and since dissent doesn't exist there, then it follows naturally too that there must be no dissenters, which, explains, of course, their complete absence from the show.
Next Matt briefly interviews a very haggard-looking Ricardo Alarcón and asks him, "Who is in charge in Cuba today." Finally, a question worth asking; but not, however, a question that Alarcón thinks worth answering and so he doesn't. Lauer, of course, does not take him to task for his evasion, but accepts Alarcon's assurances that everything is running smoothly in Cuba regardless of whom is in charge.
After blaming the trade embargo for Cuba's collapsing infrastructure (as he will for everything negative which he observes on the island), Lauer has a brief interview with Marion Berry. No, not the cocaine sniffing former mayor of Washington DC, but the (white) congressman from Arkansas of the same name. Berry is a rice farmer. His government subsidies are obviously not enough for him. He wants to sell his rice to Cuba, which Lauer noted the U.S. already supplies with 10 percent of its rice imports. That 10 percent covers the needs of Cuba's elite. The other 90 percent consume a rice that has such natural additives as pebbles, talc, dead insects and their excrementa. This rice is imported from Vietnam where it is usually fed to hogs. Still it's good enough for the Cuban people, who before the Revolution imported only China's highest grade rice and consumed more of it than any other people on earth.
After a teaser about a certain Rivero family that leads nowhere, Matt next has the most offensive exchange in the show with correspondent Andrea Mitchell, whose hatred for Cuban exiles is at least as rabid as the unlamented Katie Couric's (is that a job requirement for female reporters in the MSM?). She tells us that the U.S. and Cuba "have a shared interest and are working quietly together to make sure that [in the event of any change in Cuba] Miami people don't hit the boats and Cuban people don't hit the boats." And this is true: the U.S. and Cuba cooperate like allies when it comes to maintaining the status quo in Cuba or curbing the exiles' impulse to change it. In the view of the U.S. and Communist Cuba, Cuban exiles are not Cubans anymore; they are just "Miami people." And what do these Miami people want in Cuba? Is it to rescue their relatives as they did in the Mariel exodus? No, silly. The "Miami people" want their property back. Lauer observes that it is this fear of the "Miami people" which may be keeping Castro in power in Cuba, not, of course, the regime's apparatus of repression. The "Miami people," we might observe, though Lauer does not, have sent more in cash remittances to Cuba over the last 25 years than all the island's properties are worth.
Matt then proceeded to make what is undoubtedly the most telling remark in all his reportage on Cuba -- he referred to the trade embargo as a "blockade" as in "Cuba has persevered in the face of challenges [including] the blockade." This was no doubt a concession to "balanced reporting." You see, by interchangeably using those terms, you demonstrate your impartiality. No you don't. What you demonstrate is that you don't know the meaning of either a "blockade" or an "embargo."
In the bad old days of the Soviet Union, when Stalin made an an unexpected and incredible statement which took everybody's breath away, he usually prefixed it with "As is well-known..." Well, Matt used the same device when he declared with no hint of sarcasm: "We [Americans] know an awful lot about the history of Cuba." He then proceeded to tell us what Americans know (or at least believe they know): "Havana was a playground for tourists and gangsters. It was a period captured in the classic film The Godfather [II]." This was a refreshing admission that Coppola's toxic film is the source for everything that Americans know about pre-Castro Cuba, and, of course, it is a fictional representation which in turn derives its "historical facts" from the Castro regime's own hackneyed propaganda.
More Cuban "history" follows: After the fall of the Soviet Union, Castro called for an "organic revolution," and, as if by magic, farmers' markets sprung up all over the island to supply the deficiencies of "The Special Period." So the fall of Communism actually "benefitted" the Cuban people materially just as every other calamity that has befallen them in the 48 years of Castro's rule. King Midas should have been that good.
We next learn that Cuban grocery stores are filled with American goods. To prove it, Matt's goofer shows bottles of Hunt's Ketchup and Windex purchased in a Cuban store for an extravagant amount, which seems altogether reasonable to Matt, who obviously doesn't do his own shopping. However, the balding wunderkind failed to make the connection that the average Cuban worker earning 50 cents per day (according to him) would have to labor for more than two weeks to buy that $8.00 bottle of ketchup.
And what does he conclude from that $8.00 bottle of ketchup: "A lot of people think that the time has come to end the embargo." Why? So that the Cuban people can buy that $8.00 bottle of ketchup from American capitalists rather than from Fidel? It is wily Fidel who wants the embargo to stay in place, Lauer reasons, supposedly because he gets to sell the people $8.00 bottles of ketchup. So let's thwart Fidel and lift the embargo and Cubans will be introduced to the $7.99 bottle of ketchup.
Next came a debate of sorts -- you know, the kind when the debaters can't address each other directly -- between Sen. Bob Menéndez (D-NJ) and Kirby Jones of the U.S./Cuba Trade Association. Needless to say, Menéndez annihilated Kirby even though Lasuer cut him off when he mentioned jailed political dissidents (the only time they were mentioned in the show). Perhaps Lauer thought that because Sen. Menéndez is a Democrat he would be less "volatile" than Ileana or the Díaz-Balarts. He was wrong. Menendez is a cool character. He didn't miss the opportunity to praise Clinton's Cuba policy, but cut no slack to the opponents of the embargo or to the Castro regime. Kirby Jones, sitting beside Matt, surprised us with the most honest answer that any opponent of the embargo has ever given regarding it: "If this were a worldwide embargo, it would be another thing." Yes, indeed. It would most assuredly be "another thing." The "thing" it would be and the result it would produce can be seen in South Africa, where apartheid was flushed out precisely because all the world's nations banded together to repudiate it through a worldwide embargo. Even the Vatican, a constant critic of the embargo on Cuba, supported the embargo on South Africa.
And speaking of apartheid, Matt acknowledged that it does exist in Cuba. For Matt, however, "tourism apartheid" did not consist of excluding Cubans from hotels, beaches and other facilities which are reserved for foreigners, but, rather, he defined apartheid not as segregation of the natives, but the preference given to maintaining tourist sites in a better state of repair than the buildings inhabited by Cubans. So, in other words, if Castro only handed out paint and brushes, "apartheid" as defined by Lauer would disappear in Cuba.
But even if Castro can't give the Cuban people paint and brushes, he has given them games, that is, baseball, boxing and ballet (of course, Castro introduced all these to Cuba). In fact, "no country in the world has a greater appreciation for the arts than Cuba." This is one of Matt's many elliptical statements. Allow me to complete it: Nor does any country on earth control the arts and the artists as does Communist Cuba; nor does any country exploit artists more, cheat artists more or suppress artistic expression more.
Speaking of the Cubans' love for baseball, Matt remarks that as soon as a boy is born in Cuba his parents want to get him a baseball bat and mitt. Another elliptical statement: Matt does not mention that the average Cuban parent will not be able to satisfy that desire unless he has relatives in Miami.
Matt next extolls Cuban music with all the usual clichés. While interviewing Juan de Marcus, the Cuban producer of the Buena Vista Social Club, Matt actually declares "There is still creative freedom here [in Cuba] for artists." But most of the artists featured in the BVSC had been buried alive by the regime for 40 years and forced to work as laborers and shoeshine boys before an American record producer rescued them from oblivion and made himself and Castro another fortune (the artists themselves receiving little or nothing) from the vaunted sale of 12 million CDs. Marcus, not to be outdone, delivers himself of ths pearl: "Music is like the food for Cuba." Not just like it, but most of it. There followed a performance by Los Van-Van which was my cue to empty my bladder, so I can't critique it.
And, finally, after several plugs, comes Elián, or, rather, he doesn't. He's 13 now and must be going through that teenage "angst" which is best not broadcast. In fact, his angst must out-angst all other adolescent angst. Matt does acknowledge that Elián is a propaganda tool, or, as Matt puts it, "he is being groomed for political office in Cuba." When the host in New York observes that Elián's Miami family has not been allowed to see him since he was returned to Cuba 7 years ago, Matt smirked and actually gobbled, the only word I could find to describe his facial and neck contorsions, which were necessary to prevent him from blurting out what he was really thinking: "The Miami relatives and all Cuban exiles can go to hell." Instead, after he regained his compusure, Matt blamed the distance between Cubans on the island and in exile for this separation. Of course, Fidel, who engineered it, and Juan González, who complied with Castro's orders, are not to blame. Elián's two "fathers" and scary "Uncle" Raúl had nothing to do with it. Matt even told a bold-faced lie when he asserted that Elián's father sued and won custody in U.S. courts. The fact is that the Clinton administration preempted the trial and subverted the justice system by kidnapping Elián at gunpoint and forcibly repatriating him to his "extended family" in Cuba.
The program concludes with Matt being presented with a pure Irish linen guayabera, the kind that was last available in Cuba at El Encanto and which no Cuban can afford or wears today except the capos of the regime. He accepts it with very little graciousness, remarking that it is likely to be seized by "the trade embargo people" on his return to the U.S. owing to that bad, bad embargo.
Cuba es ...
We are grateful to Jewbana for providing us this quotation from Juan Cueto Roig, who pretty much feels and speaks for all of us when he writes:
"Cuba es un recuerdo que se niega a ser olvido. Una distancia que desgarra y enajena. Cuba es el paradójico Edén por el que mueren: los que en volverla a ver mueren soñando y los que en escapar sueñan muriendo. Cuba es la última ilusión de mi vida".
Which I have translated as:
Cuba is a fresh memory that refuses to grow old. It is a distance in time and place which breaks our hearts and alienates us from the world we inhabit. Cuba is the paradoxical Eden of those who died still dreaming of seeing her again as well as of those who escaped death only to live in its shadow without her. Cuba is the last illusion of my life."
"Cuba es un recuerdo que se niega a ser olvido. Una distancia que desgarra y enajena. Cuba es el paradójico Edén por el que mueren: los que en volverla a ver mueren soñando y los que en escapar sueñan muriendo. Cuba es la última ilusión de mi vida".
Which I have translated as:
Cuba is a fresh memory that refuses to grow old. It is a distance in time and place which breaks our hearts and alienates us from the world we inhabit. Cuba is the paradoxical Eden of those who died still dreaming of seeing her again as well as of those who escaped death only to live in its shadow without her. Cuba is the last illusion of my life."
An Interesting Discovery
No doubt others may be familiar with it but I am not. I think it will especially interest our Brazilian-based reader who never comments here but visits us daily. It is a Portuguese blog entitled Fumaças (Fumazas), which is dedicated to "charutos [cigars], politíca, poesia [e] prazeres" and whose motto is "Never, never, never give up." It is written in Spanish, for the most part, by João Carvalho Fernandes. In it I found little about "charutos, poesia [e] prazeres" and a great deal of Cuban news and commentary, all of it critical of the Castro regime. The man is certainly one of us and how he became one of us is a pleasant and encouraging surprise. I urge you visit his blog and thank him for feeling our pain at such a remove. Visit it also as a tonic against Matt Lauer's lies. The world does not consist solely of this country. Civilization both includes and transcends this country.
http://fumacas.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/cat_cuba.html
http://fumacas.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/cat_cuba.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
