Never in her soon-to-end judicial career has Judge Jeri B. Cohen enjoyed herself more than in the Elenita custody case. Anyone who has ever witnessed her courtroom antics, which go far beyond the usual histrionics indulged in by most judges, cannot but be struck by her relentless, even compulsive, seeking of the spotlight. If Elenita had ever been permitted to be present at the star-chamber proceedings that will decide her future (or, rather, whether she will have any future at all), no doubt she would have been placed at the judge's orders far outside camera view, ostensibly to protect her privacy but really to prevent her from upstaging the judge. It is, rather odd, by the way, that children in this country have privacy rights but not the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That right must be contested in a courtroom on an individual basis and at great public expense. But no matter; if we start to chronicle again the irregularities of this case, or, more disturbing still, the irregularities of this judge, we would literally have to start from the beginning, and we have been here from the beginning anyway.
Judge Cohen is dissatisfied that the Third Court of Appeals has taken a week so far to consider her previous holding that Rafael Izquierdo is a marginally-fit father, especially after her dramatic plea last week: "I'm begging the Third District Court of Appeals on my hands and knees. I'm begging them to hear this on an expedited basis. There has got to be an end in sight." We are surprised, too, that the appellate court hasn't ruled yet because there is nothing in the evidence that would lead an impartial judge to conclude that Izquierdo is a fit-father on the basis of the evidence presented in Cohen's courtroom much less the evidence which she capriciously barred in arriving at her decision. Still, protocal demands that a circuit judge not presume to dictate to an appellate court how it should handle the cases referred to it on appeal. The vice-president, after all, doesn't tell the president what to do (bad example). In any case, her maudlin plea to the appellate court last week to act with all deliberate speed has not been heeded. So a petulent Judge Cohen has, in effect, uttered the judicial equivalent of "Fuck You!" and decided to resume the case, on her own authority, while she waits for the appellate court to decide whether her finding in "Phase 1" of these proceedings shall be upheld or reversed. Here's a better comparison: she has decided to resume, unilaterally, the game during time out while the referee decides a disputed call.
As is pro forma, Judge Cohen stayed the custody case last week while the appellate court decided the appeal. This was not only in conformity with established law, but also was the logical thing to do. How can she advanced from "Phase 1" to "Phase 2" if "Phase 2" depends on the outcome of "Phase 1"? If the appellate court reverses her decision that Rafael Izquierdo is a a fit father, then "Phase 2" becomes a moot point. If the appellate court rules Izquierdo an unfit father, what would be the point of adjudicating whether it would be in Elenita's best interests to have custody given to him?
But logic and precedent have never prevented Judge Cohen from having her own way in her courtroom. Against the advisement of the Department of Children and Family Services, which appealed her initial decision, and in order, once again, to hog the spotlight, Judge Cohen has decided that she is not going to stay the case while she awaits the Third Appellate Court's decision but proceed with this judicial farce anyway. She made her decision, in her own words, "based on my years of experience [and] I did a little research on my own." Well, I guess that settles the matter. Her "years of experience" and "a little research of [her] own" trumps logic and judicial precedent. We have said it before: Judge Cohen is a law unto herself and the magistracy practiced in her courtroom has more in common with Judge Judy's than what is mandated by established law.
Her decision to resume the case will no doubt be subject to yet another appeal. Meanwhile, the judge set testimony in "Phase 2" of the trial to begin on Monday. This phase of the trial is known as the endangerment hearing where the DFC will argue that the child will be emotionally-damaged if returned to the custody of the father who abandoned her and consented to her abuse at the mother's hands. Of course, Judge Cohen has already held the father to be a marginally-fit parent, which, as I've previously observed, is certainly as good as a marginally-fit spouse, a marginally-fit doctor or a marginally-fit judge. On that basis Izquierdo's attorteys, Kurzban and Montiel-Davis, are also appealing the constitutionality of the endangerment hearing arguing that a marginally-fit parent does not pose any danger to his child.
And so, the farce continue.
POSTSCRIPT:
It may be wrong to suggest that Judge Cohen's judicial career may soon be over. Yes, it is unlikely that she will be re-elected as circuit judge if she's foolish enough to decide that notoriety equals popularity and runs again in 2008. Not only her conduct in the Elenita case but her previous remark in another case, which we were the first to report and relate to the present case, that crime in Florida would cease if all Cubans were deported, will effectively end her judicial career in Miami-Dade. Of course, President Hillary Clinton could appoint her a district or appellate judge. Or even Attorney General.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
An Art Exhibit Worth Seeing
Another pleasant surprise for me at Babalú. There have been quite a few of those lately and it worries me. Have they found at long last the gag to silence me? Which, of course, would be to adopt all my positions. Really, it was so easy that I am surprised it took them so long to figure it out. Well, not too surprised.
After ignoring Posada Carriles when he needed them most (I even saved an old e-mail from Henry asking me if he was really a "terrorist" as Castro says), Babalú's newest co-editor, Alberto de la Cruz, who is free of the original sin, posted an announcement for an exhibit of the paintings of the noted Cuban patriots Luís Posada Carriles and José Dionisio Suárez.
The date of the exhibit is October 24, between 5:00 PM and 10:00 PM, at the lobby of the Big 5 Club, 600 S.W. 92nd Street, Miami, FL.
I urge all who can to attend. It would be an ennobling experience to commune with the spirits of these brave men who are the truest living representatives of our glorious mambises. Their lives of selfless dedication to our country and the cause of freedom are examples of the highest art, which is practiced with blood and with deeds.
After ignoring Posada Carriles when he needed them most (I even saved an old e-mail from Henry asking me if he was really a "terrorist" as Castro says), Babalú's newest co-editor, Alberto de la Cruz, who is free of the original sin, posted an announcement for an exhibit of the paintings of the noted Cuban patriots Luís Posada Carriles and José Dionisio Suárez.
The date of the exhibit is October 24, between 5:00 PM and 10:00 PM, at the lobby of the Big 5 Club, 600 S.W. 92nd Street, Miami, FL.
I urge all who can to attend. It would be an ennobling experience to commune with the spirits of these brave men who are the truest living representatives of our glorious mambises. Their lives of selfless dedication to our country and the cause of freedom are examples of the highest art, which is practiced with blood and with deeds.
Castro and Stalin: Parallel Lives
I am reading right now Simon Sebag Montefiore's Young Stalin. In The New York Review of Books, Orlando Figes nicely summarizes the book in the title of his notice: "Rise of a Gangster." Stalin's revolutionary career prior to 1917 consisted of murdering enemies and rivals, industrial sabotage, kipnapping children for ransom, million-ruple bank robberies, counterfeiting, extorsion and protection rackets. Montefiore likens Stalin to an "effective godfather of a small, useful and moderately successful Mafia family." Imprisoned briefly by the Tsarist government, Stalin became the boss of the jail "dominating his friends, terrorizing the intellectuals, suborning the guards and befriending the criminals." Anyone acquainted with Castro's own gangster youth, which included killing three rivals on separate occasions by shooting them in the back — the first when Castro and the victim were teenagers — as well as dozens of indescript killings during the Bogotazo; anyone familiar with Castro's own conduct during his brief imprisonment under Batista, cannot fail to see that Castro and Stalin lived parallel lives before reaching power (and, of course, afterwards).
In fact, Fidel Castro may justly claim to be the world's last Stalinist leader. There are others, such as Kim Il Sung and Robert Mugabe, who belong to his lineage; but Castro alone came to prominence as a gangster and political agitator while Stalin still lived, conducted a revolution which was connected to Moscow from the first and joined his country's fate to it once he came to power, transforming Cuba into the Soviet Union's first ultra-continental satellite and the only one never to break from it. So faithful was Castro to Stalin's construct of the USSR than even when it fell and was dismantled he attempted to revive it by conspiring with the Old Communists (i.e. the Stalinists) to overthrow the Yeltsin government and restore Communist rule in the former Soviet Union. This may be the only instance in the history of Communism where the satrap attempted to rescue his master -- the "master" being, of course, the legacy of totalitarianism bequeathed to Russia by Castro's real mentor, Joseph Stalin.
Having failed to restore Communism in the old Soviet Union, Castro attempted to vindicate that legacy as embodied in Stalin. In a world where Stalinism has become a byword for Communist "excesses" -- in truth, it should be a more potent synonym for state-sponsored savagery and inhumanity than even Hitlerism -- Fidel Castro, in 1992, standing amid its smouldering ruins, indeed, perched on the ashcan of history, attempted one last time to vindicate Stalin. Whatever private opinion one may entertain about the erstwhile "Great Helmsman," it is doubtful that any other head of state will ever defend again or choose to identify himself publicly with Stalin.
Castro did so in an interview with Tomás Borge in Managua's El Nuevo Diario, on January 3, 1992. He no doubt felt more secure because of the venue and the interviewer, who, to simplify matters, may be likened to a Sandinista "Che" Guevara in his penchant for blood. It was Borge who introduced the subject of Stalin, sensing, perhaps, that Castro needed to vent on the subject. Or, just as likely, the interview was staged for that purpose; it is difficult to know. In fact, neither the place nor date of the interview was given.
First, Borge congratulated Castro on keeping Cuba a communist state after the fall of the Soviet Union. Castro, who did not flinch at cutting rations in half to his slaves in order to withstand the onslaught of freedom, agreed that it was quite an accomplishment for the copy to have survived the model: "The mere fact that Cuba has decided to keep going forward and face the dangers and the challenges following the collapse of the socialist bloc and the disappearance of the USSR is a significant event in history."
Borge, who, like Gladstone, knows when to slop it on with a trowel, asked if "the Cuban revolution is the beginning of a resurrection of a socialist option at the world level?" Yes, Castro agreed, Cuba is the last and best hope for the triumph of "certain principles that are immensely, extraordinarily valuable at a moment of confusion in the world." The "moment of confusion" was the dawn of freedom in the Communist world.
Borge next asked Castro what he was prepared to do if that awful specter reared its head in Cuba? Castro once answered that question in another interview by saying that he would prefer the island to sink into the ocean. In his reply to Borge, however, he said that Cubans would defend Communism even if Cuba became a "lonely island." What he actually meant, of course, was an empty island. He clarified that point immediately when he confessed that if the island were invaded "it would be necessary to exterminate millions of men determined to fight." Even then, he was sure that the "empire would not prevail." Apparently, "exterminating millions of Cubans" out of a total population of 10 million did not signify defeat to Castro: "If we were invaded and were capable of resisting until the end, that would have great value." The lives of millions of Cubans have no value but the sacrifice of their lives in order to uphold an evil ideology would have "great value."
Borge, reminding Castro that he had recently said that the USSR was "assassinated, stabbed in the back," asked Castro if Gorbachev was in on the "conspiracy of daggers that killed socialism?" Castro exculpated Gorbachev whom he said "intended to fight to improve socialism in the USSR." He even claimed, after the fact, that he approved of Gorbachev's reforms. Well, yes, Gorbachev was a true believer, and he only wanted to tinker with Communism, not implode it. His "mistake," from Castro's and Gorbachev's viewpoint, was to try to rearrange a house of cards.
Well, if not Gorbachev, who destroyed socialism and dismantled the USSR? Fidel resolutely refused to name names. He was only willing to say that it "self-destructed" and that "imperialism would not have been able to disintegrate the Soviet Union had the Soviets not destroyed it themselves." "Destroying themselves," apparently, means being unwilling to "exterminate millions" in order to save Communism. And, of course, Fidel would not be Fidel if he did not also claim that he "saw it all coming from the beginning."
Borge then suggested an unexpected culprit for the fall of Communism: "Fidel, for most Latin American revolutionary leaders, the current crisis of socialism has a mastermind: Josef Stalin."
The obvious answer would have been that Communism not only survived Joseph Stalin but expanded (to Cuba, for example, and Nicaragua) after Stalin's death.
Castro, instead, availed himself of this opportunity to expound on the merits and failures of Stalin, a subject which he affirmed he had "never discussed with any journalist or on any other occasion." No wonder.
"Blaming Stalin for everything that occurred in the Soviet Union would be a historical simplism, because no man by himself could have created certain conditions. It would be the same as giving Stalin all the credit for what the USSR once was. That is impossible!"
Castro then proceeded to blame Stalin for "violations of the legal framework (the purges?), abuses of power, failure to develop a progressive process to socialize land" — in short, all of Castro's own crimes in Cuba. As he had once championed, after the fact, the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary, Castro now repudiated, after the fact, the Hitler-Stalin Pact, which, of course, was the precursor of the equally craven but vastly more successful (for Castro) Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact. He also criticized Stalin for purging his generals on the eve of World War II (which is what Castro himself had done to Arnaldo Ochoa and the La Guardia brothers on the verge of the collapse of Communism). Finally, with unexpected and blood-curdling candor, he faulted Stalin for "placing Communists — who were great friends of the USSR — in a very difficult position by having to support each one of those episodes" [that is, the Hitler-Stalin Pact and subsequent invasion of Poland and Finland]. Yes, it is very inconsiderate of a bloodthirsty dictator to make his apologists abroad defend all his predations.
Borge should have left well enough alone. But his curiosity got the better of him. Castro had said that Stalin shouldn't be blamed for the collapse of Communism and then he proceeded to judge him with a rod by which surely he would not want to be judged himself, since he has committed all of Stalin's "mistakes" for twice as long as did Stalin.
Then came the question: "What do you believe were Stalin's merits?"
And Castro tells him:
"He established unity in the Soviet Union. He consolidated what Lenin had begun: party unity. He gave the international revolutionary movement a new impetus. The USSR's industrialization was one of Stalin's wisest actions, and I believe it was a determining factor in the USSR's capacity to resist. I believe Stalin led the USSR well during the war. According to many generals, Zhukov and the most brilliant Soviet generals, Stalin played an important role in defending the USSR and in the war against Nazism. They all recognized it. I think there should be an impartial analysis of Stalin. Blaming him for everything that happened would be historical simplism."
For someone who is very fond of historical simplisms himself, Castro won't allow Stalin to be crushed under the weight of them. He blames Stalin for what he himself copied in Cuba (the purges and a catastrophic alliance) and praises him for what he failed to accomplish in Cuba (industrialization). Castro praised him also for his defense of the Soviet motherland. What he admires, of course, is the fact that Stalin defended his power to his dying day and died in his own bed. It is a feat which Castro himself wishes to emulate, and, which, in all likelihood he will, alas.
In fact, Fidel Castro may justly claim to be the world's last Stalinist leader. There are others, such as Kim Il Sung and Robert Mugabe, who belong to his lineage; but Castro alone came to prominence as a gangster and political agitator while Stalin still lived, conducted a revolution which was connected to Moscow from the first and joined his country's fate to it once he came to power, transforming Cuba into the Soviet Union's first ultra-continental satellite and the only one never to break from it. So faithful was Castro to Stalin's construct of the USSR than even when it fell and was dismantled he attempted to revive it by conspiring with the Old Communists (i.e. the Stalinists) to overthrow the Yeltsin government and restore Communist rule in the former Soviet Union. This may be the only instance in the history of Communism where the satrap attempted to rescue his master -- the "master" being, of course, the legacy of totalitarianism bequeathed to Russia by Castro's real mentor, Joseph Stalin.
Having failed to restore Communism in the old Soviet Union, Castro attempted to vindicate that legacy as embodied in Stalin. In a world where Stalinism has become a byword for Communist "excesses" -- in truth, it should be a more potent synonym for state-sponsored savagery and inhumanity than even Hitlerism -- Fidel Castro, in 1992, standing amid its smouldering ruins, indeed, perched on the ashcan of history, attempted one last time to vindicate Stalin. Whatever private opinion one may entertain about the erstwhile "Great Helmsman," it is doubtful that any other head of state will ever defend again or choose to identify himself publicly with Stalin.
Castro did so in an interview with Tomás Borge in Managua's El Nuevo Diario, on January 3, 1992. He no doubt felt more secure because of the venue and the interviewer, who, to simplify matters, may be likened to a Sandinista "Che" Guevara in his penchant for blood. It was Borge who introduced the subject of Stalin, sensing, perhaps, that Castro needed to vent on the subject. Or, just as likely, the interview was staged for that purpose; it is difficult to know. In fact, neither the place nor date of the interview was given.
First, Borge congratulated Castro on keeping Cuba a communist state after the fall of the Soviet Union. Castro, who did not flinch at cutting rations in half to his slaves in order to withstand the onslaught of freedom, agreed that it was quite an accomplishment for the copy to have survived the model: "The mere fact that Cuba has decided to keep going forward and face the dangers and the challenges following the collapse of the socialist bloc and the disappearance of the USSR is a significant event in history."
Borge, who, like Gladstone, knows when to slop it on with a trowel, asked if "the Cuban revolution is the beginning of a resurrection of a socialist option at the world level?" Yes, Castro agreed, Cuba is the last and best hope for the triumph of "certain principles that are immensely, extraordinarily valuable at a moment of confusion in the world." The "moment of confusion" was the dawn of freedom in the Communist world.
Borge next asked Castro what he was prepared to do if that awful specter reared its head in Cuba? Castro once answered that question in another interview by saying that he would prefer the island to sink into the ocean. In his reply to Borge, however, he said that Cubans would defend Communism even if Cuba became a "lonely island." What he actually meant, of course, was an empty island. He clarified that point immediately when he confessed that if the island were invaded "it would be necessary to exterminate millions of men determined to fight." Even then, he was sure that the "empire would not prevail." Apparently, "exterminating millions of Cubans" out of a total population of 10 million did not signify defeat to Castro: "If we were invaded and were capable of resisting until the end, that would have great value." The lives of millions of Cubans have no value but the sacrifice of their lives in order to uphold an evil ideology would have "great value."
Borge, reminding Castro that he had recently said that the USSR was "assassinated, stabbed in the back," asked Castro if Gorbachev was in on the "conspiracy of daggers that killed socialism?" Castro exculpated Gorbachev whom he said "intended to fight to improve socialism in the USSR." He even claimed, after the fact, that he approved of Gorbachev's reforms. Well, yes, Gorbachev was a true believer, and he only wanted to tinker with Communism, not implode it. His "mistake," from Castro's and Gorbachev's viewpoint, was to try to rearrange a house of cards.
Well, if not Gorbachev, who destroyed socialism and dismantled the USSR? Fidel resolutely refused to name names. He was only willing to say that it "self-destructed" and that "imperialism would not have been able to disintegrate the Soviet Union had the Soviets not destroyed it themselves." "Destroying themselves," apparently, means being unwilling to "exterminate millions" in order to save Communism. And, of course, Fidel would not be Fidel if he did not also claim that he "saw it all coming from the beginning."
Borge then suggested an unexpected culprit for the fall of Communism: "Fidel, for most Latin American revolutionary leaders, the current crisis of socialism has a mastermind: Josef Stalin."
The obvious answer would have been that Communism not only survived Joseph Stalin but expanded (to Cuba, for example, and Nicaragua) after Stalin's death.
Castro, instead, availed himself of this opportunity to expound on the merits and failures of Stalin, a subject which he affirmed he had "never discussed with any journalist or on any other occasion." No wonder.
"Blaming Stalin for everything that occurred in the Soviet Union would be a historical simplism, because no man by himself could have created certain conditions. It would be the same as giving Stalin all the credit for what the USSR once was. That is impossible!"
Castro then proceeded to blame Stalin for "violations of the legal framework (the purges?), abuses of power, failure to develop a progressive process to socialize land" — in short, all of Castro's own crimes in Cuba. As he had once championed, after the fact, the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary, Castro now repudiated, after the fact, the Hitler-Stalin Pact, which, of course, was the precursor of the equally craven but vastly more successful (for Castro) Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact. He also criticized Stalin for purging his generals on the eve of World War II (which is what Castro himself had done to Arnaldo Ochoa and the La Guardia brothers on the verge of the collapse of Communism). Finally, with unexpected and blood-curdling candor, he faulted Stalin for "placing Communists — who were great friends of the USSR — in a very difficult position by having to support each one of those episodes" [that is, the Hitler-Stalin Pact and subsequent invasion of Poland and Finland]. Yes, it is very inconsiderate of a bloodthirsty dictator to make his apologists abroad defend all his predations.
Borge should have left well enough alone. But his curiosity got the better of him. Castro had said that Stalin shouldn't be blamed for the collapse of Communism and then he proceeded to judge him with a rod by which surely he would not want to be judged himself, since he has committed all of Stalin's "mistakes" for twice as long as did Stalin.
Then came the question: "What do you believe were Stalin's merits?"
And Castro tells him:
"He established unity in the Soviet Union. He consolidated what Lenin had begun: party unity. He gave the international revolutionary movement a new impetus. The USSR's industrialization was one of Stalin's wisest actions, and I believe it was a determining factor in the USSR's capacity to resist. I believe Stalin led the USSR well during the war. According to many generals, Zhukov and the most brilliant Soviet generals, Stalin played an important role in defending the USSR and in the war against Nazism. They all recognized it. I think there should be an impartial analysis of Stalin. Blaming him for everything that happened would be historical simplism."
For someone who is very fond of historical simplisms himself, Castro won't allow Stalin to be crushed under the weight of them. He blames Stalin for what he himself copied in Cuba (the purges and a catastrophic alliance) and praises him for what he failed to accomplish in Cuba (industrialization). Castro praised him also for his defense of the Soviet motherland. What he admires, of course, is the fact that Stalin defended his power to his dying day and died in his own bed. It is a feat which Castro himself wishes to emulate, and, which, in all likelihood he will, alas.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Notable & Delusional: Jimmy Carter Could Have Done for Cuba What He did for North Korea
"When I got back from Cuba and George W. Bush was in office, he just tightened up restraints on dealing with the Cuban people. On the other hand, when I came back from North Korea, I shared what I had done with Bill Clinton, and he and Madeleine Albright adopted what I had done and put it into an official agreement [with North Korea]." — Jimmy Carter, interview in The Indianapolis Star, Oct. 21, 2007.
If what Carter "had done" in North Korea led to an agreement which gave Kim Il Sung the opportunity to develop nuclear weapons while receiving billions in bribes for not doing so, we can't even imagine what might have happened in Cuba if George W. had adopted Carter's recommendations whatever they may have been.
We are surprised that Carter is not in Cuba right now certifying its one-party elections and proclaiming them fairer than the 2000 U.S. presidential elections.
If what Carter "had done" in North Korea led to an agreement which gave Kim Il Sung the opportunity to develop nuclear weapons while receiving billions in bribes for not doing so, we can't even imagine what might have happened in Cuba if George W. had adopted Carter's recommendations whatever they may have been.
We are surprised that Carter is not in Cuba right now certifying its one-party elections and proclaiming them fairer than the 2000 U.S. presidential elections.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
"Miranda Returns:" Hugo Chávez's Debut as a Sponsor of the Cinematic Arts
Chávez Is Also Producing a Film on the Life of Posada Carriles
What we find most striking about Hugo Chávez is his nonchalance about aping every idiotic idea that ever entered another despot's head regardless of whether it serves any purpose at all other than bringing him closer to absolute power. Being irrational is also a means to be original, the only means open to Chávez. His latest stunt is to finance at the people's expense the production of films and television series intended to popularize the chavista take on Venezuela's past. As Cuba did in 1959, Venezuela at the time of Chavez's ascent had the largest television industry in Latin America, which produced programs that were aired throughout the region as well as Europe (their soap operas were wildly popular in Spain). This was not enough for Chávez, or, rather, it was too much. The wrong Venezuelan culture was being exhibited to an appreciative world. He had to purify and revolutionize the national media in order to project his vision of Venezuelan history and culture to the world. "There is no revolution if we don't recover our culture, our own values," Chavez said. "It's part of the fight against (U.S.) imperial hegemony." On more practical grounds, having already taken over the nation's largest broadcasting network because he objected to its coverage of his regime, Chávez had to provide something for Venezuelans to watch other than his own execrable television show, "Alo, presidente."
The first fruit of his artistic vision has just been revealed. Of course, his artistic vision has a lot in common — in concept if not execution — with Hitler's and Stalin's. Just as they bankrolled the wartime production of patriotic biopics about their respective heroes, Ivan the Terrible and Frederick the Great, Chávez, too, has sought to cloak himself with the mantle of his country's epic prohombres.
The first film released by the state-run Villa del Cine [Cinema Town] studio, entitled Miranda Regresa [Miranda Returns], is dedicated to the life of Francisco Miranda, known in Venezuela as the "Precursor" because his efforts to free his country from Spanish rule predated Bolívar's. Miranda was a Venezuelan-born general in the Spanish army who switched sides during the French Revolution and become a general in Napoleon's army. He wanted to liberate the South American continent and attempted, unsuccessfully, to secure the help of everyone from William Pitt to George Washington. Meanwhile, Bolivar, on the ground in Venezuela, started the revolution that Miranda had hoped to lead. The Liberator invited Miranda to join him, which he did (this is to the credit of both). Placed at the head of his own army, Miranda, without advising Bolívar or any of the other generals, immediately negotiated an armistice with the Spanish. Repudiated by Bolívar, who thought him a traitor, Miranda was captured and handed over to the Spanish, who, ignoring their "armistice," shipped him in chains to Spain, where he died on the anniversary of Bastille Day in a Cádiz prison in 1816. This proved, at least, that he was not a traitor, though a very poor judge of men. Miranda's lofty ideals for the region were never realized because of his low opinion of his countrymen, whom he did not trust sufficiently to lead into battle. Bolívar would lead the Venezuelans to victory but would, in the end, become as disillusioned with them as Miranda did. His last words were either "The two biggest dolts in the universe, Jesus Christ and me" or "I have ploughed the seas."
The moral to be derived from this story is that while Miranda and Bolívar found the Venezuelan people ungovernable, that is, too unenlightened for the Enlightenment, Chávez, their self-styled organic successor, has found a way to govern them according to their merits. The Indian has bested the patricians while laying claim to their legacy, and Chávez wants Venezuelans and the world to know it.
The film, incidentally, features Danny Glover as a Haitian supporter of Miranda's, not at all unusual since in his many peregrinations Miranda had lived in Haiti, except that he met this fictional Haitian in New York. If you are thinking of an 18th century Starsky and Hutch you are not far from what this movie aims at. The soap opera star who portrays Miranda, 25-year old Jorge Reyes, ages in the film from age 18 to 66, the kind of transformation one hasn't seen on the big screen since Little Big Man. Miranda Regresa was filmed in Venezuela, Cuba (a stand-in for Haiti) and the Czech Republic (a stand-in for France). The budget was $2.3 million and for that they even managed to stage grand battle scenes.
Villa del Cine's next production is to be a film on the life of Luis Posada Carriles, the well-known Cuban freedom fighter with connections to Venezuela. We suppose that he will not be given the hagiographic treatment. I haven't figured it out yet, but I am sure that there will be a part in the film for Danny Glover and I can't wait to see whom they choose to play Fidel Castro.
What we find most striking about Hugo Chávez is his nonchalance about aping every idiotic idea that ever entered another despot's head regardless of whether it serves any purpose at all other than bringing him closer to absolute power. Being irrational is also a means to be original, the only means open to Chávez. His latest stunt is to finance at the people's expense the production of films and television series intended to popularize the chavista take on Venezuela's past. As Cuba did in 1959, Venezuela at the time of Chavez's ascent had the largest television industry in Latin America, which produced programs that were aired throughout the region as well as Europe (their soap operas were wildly popular in Spain). This was not enough for Chávez, or, rather, it was too much. The wrong Venezuelan culture was being exhibited to an appreciative world. He had to purify and revolutionize the national media in order to project his vision of Venezuelan history and culture to the world. "There is no revolution if we don't recover our culture, our own values," Chavez said. "It's part of the fight against (U.S.) imperial hegemony." On more practical grounds, having already taken over the nation's largest broadcasting network because he objected to its coverage of his regime, Chávez had to provide something for Venezuelans to watch other than his own execrable television show, "Alo, presidente."
The first fruit of his artistic vision has just been revealed. Of course, his artistic vision has a lot in common — in concept if not execution — with Hitler's and Stalin's. Just as they bankrolled the wartime production of patriotic biopics about their respective heroes, Ivan the Terrible and Frederick the Great, Chávez, too, has sought to cloak himself with the mantle of his country's epic prohombres.
The first film released by the state-run Villa del Cine [Cinema Town] studio, entitled Miranda Regresa [Miranda Returns], is dedicated to the life of Francisco Miranda, known in Venezuela as the "Precursor" because his efforts to free his country from Spanish rule predated Bolívar's. Miranda was a Venezuelan-born general in the Spanish army who switched sides during the French Revolution and become a general in Napoleon's army. He wanted to liberate the South American continent and attempted, unsuccessfully, to secure the help of everyone from William Pitt to George Washington. Meanwhile, Bolivar, on the ground in Venezuela, started the revolution that Miranda had hoped to lead. The Liberator invited Miranda to join him, which he did (this is to the credit of both). Placed at the head of his own army, Miranda, without advising Bolívar or any of the other generals, immediately negotiated an armistice with the Spanish. Repudiated by Bolívar, who thought him a traitor, Miranda was captured and handed over to the Spanish, who, ignoring their "armistice," shipped him in chains to Spain, where he died on the anniversary of Bastille Day in a Cádiz prison in 1816. This proved, at least, that he was not a traitor, though a very poor judge of men. Miranda's lofty ideals for the region were never realized because of his low opinion of his countrymen, whom he did not trust sufficiently to lead into battle. Bolívar would lead the Venezuelans to victory but would, in the end, become as disillusioned with them as Miranda did. His last words were either "The two biggest dolts in the universe, Jesus Christ and me" or "I have ploughed the seas."
The moral to be derived from this story is that while Miranda and Bolívar found the Venezuelan people ungovernable, that is, too unenlightened for the Enlightenment, Chávez, their self-styled organic successor, has found a way to govern them according to their merits. The Indian has bested the patricians while laying claim to their legacy, and Chávez wants Venezuelans and the world to know it.
The film, incidentally, features Danny Glover as a Haitian supporter of Miranda's, not at all unusual since in his many peregrinations Miranda had lived in Haiti, except that he met this fictional Haitian in New York. If you are thinking of an 18th century Starsky and Hutch you are not far from what this movie aims at. The soap opera star who portrays Miranda, 25-year old Jorge Reyes, ages in the film from age 18 to 66, the kind of transformation one hasn't seen on the big screen since Little Big Man. Miranda Regresa was filmed in Venezuela, Cuba (a stand-in for Haiti) and the Czech Republic (a stand-in for France). The budget was $2.3 million and for that they even managed to stage grand battle scenes.
Villa del Cine's next production is to be a film on the life of Luis Posada Carriles, the well-known Cuban freedom fighter with connections to Venezuela. We suppose that he will not be given the hagiographic treatment. I haven't figured it out yet, but I am sure that there will be a part in the film for Danny Glover and I can't wait to see whom they choose to play Fidel Castro.
Blog Review: Cuban-American Pundits
We are in the midst of a revolution in the Cuban-American blogosphere, the rare kind of revolution that advances the human condition rather than retards it. I noted earlier this week the remarkable transformation which has been wrought at the 26th Parallel blog, which has regained a distinctive character of its own after a long existence as an indescript appendage to Babalú. It is even more remarkable that this trend has extended to Cuban-American Pundits, which is currently the collaborative effort of Sr. Cohiba, Henry Gómez and John "Songuacassal" (better known as Ziva).
In its original incarnation, also known as its glory days, Cuban-American Pundits also boasted as contributing editors Killcastro and Charlie Bravo, who were founding members along with Henry and Ziva. Charlie left because of a disagreement with Henry over flag-burning, which the "American-Cuban" Henry supported. Killcastro followed in solidarity with Charlie Bravo. The two then started Killcastro blog with Ziva, who would later defect from Killcastro to Babalú. Val Prieto, who has a vulture's eye for the main chance, also grabbed up Henry as a contributor. Assimilating the competition is Val's way of eliminating it.
With the departure of Killcastro and Charlie Bravo, and the drafting of Henry and Ziva by Val Prieto, Cuban-American Pundits, formerly one of the most entertaining of Cuban-American blogs, became an afterthought and a burden. That it was kept going at all must be attributed to early second thoughts on Henry's part about the move to Babalú and the necessity of having a fallback plan if it didn't work out. Of course, it worked out very well, which left CAP very much the worse for it.
When Henry was Henry, not Val & Henry, Cuban American Pundits, although perhaps a little too much addicted to cut and paste, did manage to produce regularly insighful and entertaining posts whose chief charm was their lack of pretentiousness. Those acquainted with Henry's present work at Babalú will find that almost unbelievable. Back then, Henry wrote a credo of sorts which stipulated, among other things, that "[W]hat you won't generally find here [at CAP] is gratuitous name-calling. You won't find wild speculation (unless it's labeled as such) and you won't find unsubstantiated reports (unless they are likewise labeled as such)." This, in itself, makes the old CAP infinitely the superior of Babalú, where all that and worse is found. This Henry didn't claim to be an expert at anything; very different from the current Henry who is an expert at everything. From this period dates some of Henry's best writing, such as his "Message to Mr. or Ms. Leftside," "Letter to John Moscowitz" and "We Get Letters" (about "Che" Guevara). As a respondent to wacky liberal correspondents, in the MSM or his own e-mail, Henry has few peers among Cuban bloggers. From this period, also, dates Henry's 14-chapter novelistic continuation of The Lost City, which, if you could suffer through the movie, you would certainly endure reading, too. Henry also used to publish his original poetry on CAP. I am not cruel enough to quote from it.
Ziva also did excellent work at CAP, although in that regard she has always been consistent. Her lighter pieces, for which she also has a deft hand, were reserved for this period and are almost absent from her present writing. I recall especially her "Caliente, Amargo, Fuerte y [Espeso]" about Cuban coffee and an essay about the typical cubanita. That Ziva would surprise and delight her readers at Babalú, too, if that Ziva were not considered too frivolous for her current lofty endeavors. Perhaps that is the reason that Ziva returned to CAP as a contributing editor earlier this year, just in time to devote a post to the Review of Cuban-American Blogs, which was deleted soon after. And, speaking of deletions, all the early Killcastro and Charlie Bravo material was also deleted from CAP, hence our inability to comment on it.
Nowadays, Henry and Ziva save their best work for Babalú and do not simply link significant posts from their own blog(s) as does, for example, Marc Másferrer. Lately, in fact, the editors at CAP have reduced the volume to such a point that it is almost inaudible, or, rather, they've raised it but not on the political debate but on the delights of our Cuban musical heritage.
The richness of Cuban culture, which, even today, is the extended reflection of Republican culture, is as potent an argument as any, and more irrefutable than most, that civilization reached its apex in Cuba before 1959 and that nothing of value has been added since though much has been lost, through official rejection or indifference, which can be lethal when the government controls the arts.
It is, therefore, also a function of politics to recognize and disseminate the monuments of that culture, which now appears to be CAP's mission through the agency of YouTube. In the last few weeks it has featured performances of the works of such artists as René Touzet; Pérez Prado; Ignacio Cervantes and others. I should like to think that this is not simply filler material, but represents a concerted effort to highlight what culture can achieve when unfettered, and how, when fettered, as in Cuba today, culture becomes, with few exceptions, like the record that is harpooned on one groove and can't move to the next song, or, in this case, the next phase of musical development. It would have been better if they had offered some critical apparatus to accompany the performances besides identifying Lecuona as Cuba's greatest composer or Cervantes as a 19th-century one; on second thought, it is perhaps better to let the work speak for itself.
Cuban-American Pundits has seen better days, but the present, at least, is free of the excesses that are the bane of Babalu's existence. It is not a substitute for the "mother blog" if one wants to know the meanderings of Val & Co., but its decline has at least been gracious and its inoffensiveness remains a merit. If Henry were ever to abandon his plans of waging crusades against entire peoples or seducing superannuated Marxist entertainers like Sting, Cuban-American Pundits remains as a reminder of his better self and a refuge where he can still be relevant and engaging if he still remembers how.
POSTSCRIPT:
As a matter of record, Ziva affirms that she was never involved in any capacity with Cuban-American Pundits.
In its original incarnation, also known as its glory days, Cuban-American Pundits also boasted as contributing editors Killcastro and Charlie Bravo, who were founding members along with Henry and Ziva. Charlie left because of a disagreement with Henry over flag-burning, which the "American-Cuban" Henry supported. Killcastro followed in solidarity with Charlie Bravo. The two then started Killcastro blog with Ziva, who would later defect from Killcastro to Babalú. Val Prieto, who has a vulture's eye for the main chance, also grabbed up Henry as a contributor. Assimilating the competition is Val's way of eliminating it.
With the departure of Killcastro and Charlie Bravo, and the drafting of Henry and Ziva by Val Prieto, Cuban-American Pundits, formerly one of the most entertaining of Cuban-American blogs, became an afterthought and a burden. That it was kept going at all must be attributed to early second thoughts on Henry's part about the move to Babalú and the necessity of having a fallback plan if it didn't work out. Of course, it worked out very well, which left CAP very much the worse for it.
When Henry was Henry, not Val & Henry, Cuban American Pundits, although perhaps a little too much addicted to cut and paste, did manage to produce regularly insighful and entertaining posts whose chief charm was their lack of pretentiousness. Those acquainted with Henry's present work at Babalú will find that almost unbelievable. Back then, Henry wrote a credo of sorts which stipulated, among other things, that "[W]hat you won't generally find here [at CAP] is gratuitous name-calling. You won't find wild speculation (unless it's labeled as such) and you won't find unsubstantiated reports (unless they are likewise labeled as such)." This, in itself, makes the old CAP infinitely the superior of Babalú, where all that and worse is found. This Henry didn't claim to be an expert at anything; very different from the current Henry who is an expert at everything. From this period dates some of Henry's best writing, such as his "Message to Mr. or Ms. Leftside," "Letter to John Moscowitz" and "We Get Letters" (about "Che" Guevara). As a respondent to wacky liberal correspondents, in the MSM or his own e-mail, Henry has few peers among Cuban bloggers. From this period, also, dates Henry's 14-chapter novelistic continuation of The Lost City, which, if you could suffer through the movie, you would certainly endure reading, too. Henry also used to publish his original poetry on CAP. I am not cruel enough to quote from it.
Ziva also did excellent work at CAP, although in that regard she has always been consistent. Her lighter pieces, for which she also has a deft hand, were reserved for this period and are almost absent from her present writing. I recall especially her "Caliente, Amargo, Fuerte y [Espeso]" about Cuban coffee and an essay about the typical cubanita. That Ziva would surprise and delight her readers at Babalú, too, if that Ziva were not considered too frivolous for her current lofty endeavors. Perhaps that is the reason that Ziva returned to CAP as a contributing editor earlier this year, just in time to devote a post to the Review of Cuban-American Blogs, which was deleted soon after. And, speaking of deletions, all the early Killcastro and Charlie Bravo material was also deleted from CAP, hence our inability to comment on it.
Nowadays, Henry and Ziva save their best work for Babalú and do not simply link significant posts from their own blog(s) as does, for example, Marc Másferrer. Lately, in fact, the editors at CAP have reduced the volume to such a point that it is almost inaudible, or, rather, they've raised it but not on the political debate but on the delights of our Cuban musical heritage.
The richness of Cuban culture, which, even today, is the extended reflection of Republican culture, is as potent an argument as any, and more irrefutable than most, that civilization reached its apex in Cuba before 1959 and that nothing of value has been added since though much has been lost, through official rejection or indifference, which can be lethal when the government controls the arts.
It is, therefore, also a function of politics to recognize and disseminate the monuments of that culture, which now appears to be CAP's mission through the agency of YouTube. In the last few weeks it has featured performances of the works of such artists as René Touzet; Pérez Prado; Ignacio Cervantes and others. I should like to think that this is not simply filler material, but represents a concerted effort to highlight what culture can achieve when unfettered, and how, when fettered, as in Cuba today, culture becomes, with few exceptions, like the record that is harpooned on one groove and can't move to the next song, or, in this case, the next phase of musical development. It would have been better if they had offered some critical apparatus to accompany the performances besides identifying Lecuona as Cuba's greatest composer or Cervantes as a 19th-century one; on second thought, it is perhaps better to let the work speak for itself.
Cuban-American Pundits has seen better days, but the present, at least, is free of the excesses that are the bane of Babalu's existence. It is not a substitute for the "mother blog" if one wants to know the meanderings of Val & Co., but its decline has at least been gracious and its inoffensiveness remains a merit. If Henry were ever to abandon his plans of waging crusades against entire peoples or seducing superannuated Marxist entertainers like Sting, Cuban-American Pundits remains as a reminder of his better self and a refuge where he can still be relevant and engaging if he still remembers how.
POSTSCRIPT:
As a matter of record, Ziva affirms that she was never involved in any capacity with Cuban-American Pundits.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Venezuelans Shatter Glass Monument to "Che" Guevara
It Had Been Inaugurated 10 Days Earlier
.jpg)
For a man who lived in a glass house all his adult life, throwing stones at the innocent until one finally rebounded on him, what could be more appropriate than a monument which invites the re-enactment of his final hour? This is precisely what happened to the glass monument to "Che" Guevara which Hugo Chávez caused to be erected in the state of Mérida, at the highest point in the Venezuelan Andes. The 8 feet (2.4 meter) glass monument, dedicated on October 8 to mark the 40th anniversary of Guevara's death, was shattered by six gunshots 10 days later, on the morning of Oct. 19. The local mayor blamed the act on "outsiders," by which we suppose he means persons living outside his municipality, not "outsiders" in the sense of mercenaries like Guevara himself.
The Páramo Patriotic Front, an anti-Communist clandestine movement, took credit for the monument's destruction. A communiqué left at the scene proclaimed: "We don't want a monument to 'Che' Guevara, who is not an example for our children to emulate: he was Minister of Industry in Cuba and finished off all Cuban industries; he was chancellor and isolated Cuba from the rest of the world; he was chief of the Cuban National Bank and bankrupted the country. So, Jorge Rodríguez [the Venezuelan vice-president who inaugurated the monument] let your sons be like 'Che' and Chávez's too; but as for our children, we don't want them to be anything like 'Che.'"
The monument was erected at the highest elevation in Venezuela, Pico Aguila (Eagle Peak), the name of which was changed earlier this year by the local legislature to "El Collado del Cóndor" (Hill of the Condor), since the eagle (bald or not) has fallen out of favor among the chavistas. The guest of "honor" at the inauguration ceremony had been Cuba's ambassador to Venezuela, Germán Sánchez Otero, who declared that "'Che' belongs today to all Venezuelans, because he was undoubtedly the most outstanding Bolivarian of the 20th century, and, with Fidel, he was the initiator of the Bolivarian and Martinian Revolution which is now being heroically fought on this Continent."
Venezuelans, apparently, don't want to have anything to do with this peculiar "Bolivarian-Martinian" Revolution which negates the life and work of Simón Bolívar and José Martí.
POSTSCRIPT:
I reproduced the communiqué from the Páramo Patriotic Front as printed yesterday in the Venezuelan newspaper El Universal. In the unattributed version quoted in the Comments, the final clause of the anathema of Guevara reads "and he was a cold-blooded murderer." Now the indictment sounds right and is complete. The author, who obviously has a good grasp of Cuban history and Guevara's role in it, would surely not have failed to mention the real basis of "Che's" fame and consummation of his career as an internationalist terrorist.
In omitting that clause from the published communiqué, El Universal may have recoursed to self-censorship, but, more likely, it was the local authorities in Mérida, fearful of reprisals, who did not dare release the full version of the communiqué.
I should not be surprised if Mérida's 8-foot monument were to be rebuilt as an 80 feet or even an 800-feet one. Chávez's idea to build "stations of the cross" to "Che" wherever he set foot in Venezuela, or whizzed by on his motorcycle, reminds me of Idi Amin's monument to Adolph Hitler in Uganda, which, since Germany (and much less Hitler) came nowhere near Uganda in World War II, he was obliged to place at a site traversed by some German troops in World War I.
Chávez's monument to "Che" shares something else with Idi Amin's monument to Hitler: it will be just as ephemeral no matter how many times he erects it.
Expect the next one, by the way, to have a 24-hour "honor" guard.
For a man who lived in a glass house all his adult life, throwing stones at the innocent until one finally rebounded on him, what could be more appropriate than a monument which invites the re-enactment of his final hour? This is precisely what happened to the glass monument to "Che" Guevara which Hugo Chávez caused to be erected in the state of Mérida, at the highest point in the Venezuelan Andes. The 8 feet (2.4 meter) glass monument, dedicated on October 8 to mark the 40th anniversary of Guevara's death, was shattered by six gunshots 10 days later, on the morning of Oct. 19. The local mayor blamed the act on "outsiders," by which we suppose he means persons living outside his municipality, not "outsiders" in the sense of mercenaries like Guevara himself.
The Páramo Patriotic Front, an anti-Communist clandestine movement, took credit for the monument's destruction. A communiqué left at the scene proclaimed: "We don't want a monument to 'Che' Guevara, who is not an example for our children to emulate: he was Minister of Industry in Cuba and finished off all Cuban industries; he was chancellor and isolated Cuba from the rest of the world; he was chief of the Cuban National Bank and bankrupted the country. So, Jorge Rodríguez [the Venezuelan vice-president who inaugurated the monument] let your sons be like 'Che' and Chávez's too; but as for our children, we don't want them to be anything like 'Che.'"
The monument was erected at the highest elevation in Venezuela, Pico Aguila (Eagle Peak), the name of which was changed earlier this year by the local legislature to "El Collado del Cóndor" (Hill of the Condor), since the eagle (bald or not) has fallen out of favor among the chavistas. The guest of "honor" at the inauguration ceremony had been Cuba's ambassador to Venezuela, Germán Sánchez Otero, who declared that "'Che' belongs today to all Venezuelans, because he was undoubtedly the most outstanding Bolivarian of the 20th century, and, with Fidel, he was the initiator of the Bolivarian and Martinian Revolution which is now being heroically fought on this Continent."
Venezuelans, apparently, don't want to have anything to do with this peculiar "Bolivarian-Martinian" Revolution which negates the life and work of Simón Bolívar and José Martí.
POSTSCRIPT:
I reproduced the communiqué from the Páramo Patriotic Front as printed yesterday in the Venezuelan newspaper El Universal. In the unattributed version quoted in the Comments, the final clause of the anathema of Guevara reads "and he was a cold-blooded murderer." Now the indictment sounds right and is complete. The author, who obviously has a good grasp of Cuban history and Guevara's role in it, would surely not have failed to mention the real basis of "Che's" fame and consummation of his career as an internationalist terrorist.
In omitting that clause from the published communiqué, El Universal may have recoursed to self-censorship, but, more likely, it was the local authorities in Mérida, fearful of reprisals, who did not dare release the full version of the communiqué.
I should not be surprised if Mérida's 8-foot monument were to be rebuilt as an 80 feet or even an 800-feet one. Chávez's idea to build "stations of the cross" to "Che" wherever he set foot in Venezuela, or whizzed by on his motorcycle, reminds me of Idi Amin's monument to Adolph Hitler in Uganda, which, since Germany (and much less Hitler) came nowhere near Uganda in World War II, he was obliged to place at a site traversed by some German troops in World War I.
Chávez's monument to "Che" shares something else with Idi Amin's monument to Hitler: it will be just as ephemeral no matter how many times he erects it.
Expect the next one, by the way, to have a 24-hour "honor" guard.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Blog Review: The "26th Parallel"
If I were to institute a "Most Improved Babalunian Satellite" Award, I should bestow it on Robert Molleda's 26th Parallel blog. Although I am not known for economizing on words, I shall put is very simply: It was lousy and now it's not. So detached was Robert from his subject (that is, from Cuba) that I presumed once that he wasn't Cuban. By "detached" I do not mean indifferent, but, rather, dispassionate and antiseptic. He's not anymore — indifferent, that is. How this metamorphosis was brought about is a mystery to me. There is nothing to explain it externally: no new contributors to shake and reconfigure the mix; no few features to add variety and expand the content; no announced or unannounced changes in its lay-out or editorial policy. Yet there has been a change, and since all else remains the same, it is obviously the author himself who has changed and for the better. This, believe it or not, is heartening to me. The cause d'etre of the Review of Cuban-American Blogs is the regeneration of Babalú and its satellites. Never did I wish them to disappear, or even to become clones of this blog (as if that were possible).
All that I ever wanted was for them to stop the regimen of arbitrary censorship and abuse of dissenting opinions which had come to characterize them individually and as a group and which contrasted starkly with their expressed wishes for a Free Cuba; to stop kow-towing at every opportunity to the prejudices of their Anglo neighbors and judges; to stop supporting anti-Hispanic bigots such as Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson, who wish none of us well and who do not and never have exempted Cuban-Americans from their racist presumptions and calculations; to stop sacrificing innocent children to Castro because they do not want to be reminded of the lessons of 4/22 (more valuable to us as Cubans than the lessons of 9/11) — to wit, that American democracy is imperfect and the American people too ill-served by the mainstrean media to be anything but impervious to our suffering; to stop making excuses for the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy, the repeal of which most of them opposed because they think that there are already enough Cubans in Miami and fear what another Mariel might do to their battered reputation as the "good immigrants;" to stop fomenting hate campaigns against entire nations because their leaders are inimical to our cause and to stop courting with bathetic desperation celebrities who don't give a damn about us and never have; and, finally, to stop being shills for George Bush and the Republicans (without switching allegiance to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats).
A tall order indeed, since if you eliminate all of these various fixations and core beliefs, you are left with little else of substance besides the primal concept that Castro is not good for Cuba.
It was, therefore, both a surprising and welcome development when the 26th Parallel began to move away from the common Babalunian verities and stake for itself an independent position or two. Since it was one of the more calcified of Babalú's petrified progeny, it was nothing short of a miracle to see it suddenly come to live and struggle to find its bearings.
What first alerted me to this evolution at the 26th Parallel was Robert's masterful takedown of Rick of Stuck of the Palmetto, something which both Val and Henry had attempted unsuccessfully. Not that Rick is Henry's or even Val's superior, but their real and confessed hatred for him makes it hard for them to engage him in anything but a street brawl. For this, at least, I cannot really blame them. Still, it was Robert who demolished Rick's peculiar take on the Cuban health care system — that the miserable care available for free to the average Cuban is somehow offset or balanced by the excellent care provided for dollars to foreigners and the party elite. Someone who would think in those terms is really beyond human agency and ignoring him is the best rebuke. But if he must be answered, then Robert has provided a good answer (so far, unchallenged).
In another recent post, Robert demonstrates that he has gained a new perspective on the Elenita case, as, indeed, have most of his Babalunian colleagues, who, at one time, following Henry's lead, proclaimed that the custody case was just a trap set by The Miami Herald to ensnare us into "Elián, the Sequel" and that we should not fall for it even if a thousand Cuban children had to be sacrificed to the new Molloc. Well, the fact that it was Joe Cubas — a celebrity and one greatly respected by his fellow Cuban exiles — who was the standard bearer in this battle against Castro appears to have been the catalyst for the Babalunians to rethink their position. They might be persuaded to support a celebrity in his quest to save an innocent child; another Lázaro González, never. Well, even if snobbery filled the place of common humanity, in this instance, at least, they evolved in the right direction. I am too humble to claim any credit myself for changing their minds. You are free to think so, however.
In the six months since I founded the Review of Cuban-American Blogs, there have been improvements, great and small, towards the eradication of many of the self-defeating tendencies I have outlined. The only area where there has been no discernable change is in what Martí called "yankofilia," which betrays a latent but consistent neo-annexionism — after Castroism, the greatest threat to the future of our country. The day that Babalú or its satellites actually disavow this treason I shall close this blog because my work will be done.
All that I ever wanted was for them to stop the regimen of arbitrary censorship and abuse of dissenting opinions which had come to characterize them individually and as a group and which contrasted starkly with their expressed wishes for a Free Cuba; to stop kow-towing at every opportunity to the prejudices of their Anglo neighbors and judges; to stop supporting anti-Hispanic bigots such as Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson, who wish none of us well and who do not and never have exempted Cuban-Americans from their racist presumptions and calculations; to stop sacrificing innocent children to Castro because they do not want to be reminded of the lessons of 4/22 (more valuable to us as Cubans than the lessons of 9/11) — to wit, that American democracy is imperfect and the American people too ill-served by the mainstrean media to be anything but impervious to our suffering; to stop making excuses for the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy, the repeal of which most of them opposed because they think that there are already enough Cubans in Miami and fear what another Mariel might do to their battered reputation as the "good immigrants;" to stop fomenting hate campaigns against entire nations because their leaders are inimical to our cause and to stop courting with bathetic desperation celebrities who don't give a damn about us and never have; and, finally, to stop being shills for George Bush and the Republicans (without switching allegiance to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats).
A tall order indeed, since if you eliminate all of these various fixations and core beliefs, you are left with little else of substance besides the primal concept that Castro is not good for Cuba.
It was, therefore, both a surprising and welcome development when the 26th Parallel began to move away from the common Babalunian verities and stake for itself an independent position or two. Since it was one of the more calcified of Babalú's petrified progeny, it was nothing short of a miracle to see it suddenly come to live and struggle to find its bearings.
What first alerted me to this evolution at the 26th Parallel was Robert's masterful takedown of Rick of Stuck of the Palmetto, something which both Val and Henry had attempted unsuccessfully. Not that Rick is Henry's or even Val's superior, but their real and confessed hatred for him makes it hard for them to engage him in anything but a street brawl. For this, at least, I cannot really blame them. Still, it was Robert who demolished Rick's peculiar take on the Cuban health care system — that the miserable care available for free to the average Cuban is somehow offset or balanced by the excellent care provided for dollars to foreigners and the party elite. Someone who would think in those terms is really beyond human agency and ignoring him is the best rebuke. But if he must be answered, then Robert has provided a good answer (so far, unchallenged).
In another recent post, Robert demonstrates that he has gained a new perspective on the Elenita case, as, indeed, have most of his Babalunian colleagues, who, at one time, following Henry's lead, proclaimed that the custody case was just a trap set by The Miami Herald to ensnare us into "Elián, the Sequel" and that we should not fall for it even if a thousand Cuban children had to be sacrificed to the new Molloc. Well, the fact that it was Joe Cubas — a celebrity and one greatly respected by his fellow Cuban exiles — who was the standard bearer in this battle against Castro appears to have been the catalyst for the Babalunians to rethink their position. They might be persuaded to support a celebrity in his quest to save an innocent child; another Lázaro González, never. Well, even if snobbery filled the place of common humanity, in this instance, at least, they evolved in the right direction. I am too humble to claim any credit myself for changing their minds. You are free to think so, however.
In the six months since I founded the Review of Cuban-American Blogs, there have been improvements, great and small, towards the eradication of many of the self-defeating tendencies I have outlined. The only area where there has been no discernable change is in what Martí called "yankofilia," which betrays a latent but consistent neo-annexionism — after Castroism, the greatest threat to the future of our country. The day that Babalú or its satellites actually disavow this treason I shall close this blog because my work will be done.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Judge Jeri B. Cohen Awaits Her Report Card
The Cubas-Izquierdo custody case is now just a torn page in the history of judicial malfeasance. The decision by the Florida Department of Children & Families to challenge Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen's holding that Rafael Izquierdo was at the least a marginally fit parent, has removed the case for the present from her jurisdiction to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which shall decide for itself whether Izquierdo abandoned his daughter or condoned her abuse. The second phase of the trial, which would have determined what was in Elenita's best interest, whether to stay with the foster parents with whom she had bonded or be returned to her marginally-fit father and marginally-inhabitable country, has been automatically stayed pending the appellate court's decision. If it upholds Judge Cohen, the case will be returned to her courtroom for further adjudication. If, however, the higher court rules that Izquierdo does not meet the definition of a marginal father, then the second phase of the trial is unnecessary. This is Elenita's best hope. However, even if the Appellate court upholds Judge Cohen's flawed decision, this does not necessarily mean that Izquierdo (or, rather, Castro) has prevailed. There still remains the hearing to decide what is in the best interest of the child. Kurzban and Montiel-Davis are arguing that reunification with a birth parent is always in the child's best interest if the parent is at least marginally fit, as Judge Cohen proclaimed Izquierdo to be. What needs to be decided this time is whether wishing to consign his own daughter to slavery is sufficient grounds to consider Izquierdo an unfit parent. That, of course, can't be done unless one considers the nature of the place to which he wants to take her. Judge Cohen's proscription against the use of the "C-word" (as she called it) in her courtroom, made such an assessment impossible.
We have carefully outlined in more than 20 posts the reasons that we believe Judge Cohen's courtroom was the setting, and the judge herself the instrument, for the greatest custody fraud ever perpetrated in an American courtroom. All the defense witnesses perjured themselves at the urging and with the connivance of their own attorneys, and confessed to it in open court without being held in contempt. Kurzban and Montiel-Davis were shown to make soborned perjury at the very least, and orquestrated a campaign of deception and legerdemain that would have amounted to obstruction of justice in any other courtroom but Judge Cohen's.
One of the judge's favorite mantras — there were several — was that she was not going to do anything that might lead to the reversal of her decision. In other words, she admitted not once but a hundred times that she was playing to the royal boxes. She saw this case as one that would advance her career. She is right insofar as a great number of her constituents can now put a face to her hood and even jurisdictions outside of Florida are now acquainted with Miami-Dade's version of Judge Judy (or is that an oxymoron?). But publicity is not enough for advancement. She must also exhibit judicial probity and the appellate court would be the sole judge of that. Rather than do her best and be judged accordingty, Judge Cohen has strained for the last 6 months to divine the appellate court's wisdom in this matter, hoping that by second-guessing them she won't herself be second-guessed.
Well, she's going to get her long-awaited report card. In fact, she even begged her judges to act quickly and deliberately in rendering what she hopes will be the highest grades. It would not surprise us if she were disappointed in her expectations. Then we would have to add ignorance of the law to all her other judicial shortcomings. It is doubtful whether her career can survive a reversal. It is one thing to act like an ass and quite another to be certified as an ass. She forgets that there is another audience that will be judging her — her constituents. The comings and goings of other politicians are mostly inscrutable. A politician-judge's actions are all a matter of record and open for public view.
Anything that takes Judge Cohen out of the picture, potentially forever and certainly for a very long time, will benefit Elenita's chances of remaining in this country without the threat posed to her life and liberty by her birth parents.
We have carefully outlined in more than 20 posts the reasons that we believe Judge Cohen's courtroom was the setting, and the judge herself the instrument, for the greatest custody fraud ever perpetrated in an American courtroom. All the defense witnesses perjured themselves at the urging and with the connivance of their own attorneys, and confessed to it in open court without being held in contempt. Kurzban and Montiel-Davis were shown to make soborned perjury at the very least, and orquestrated a campaign of deception and legerdemain that would have amounted to obstruction of justice in any other courtroom but Judge Cohen's.
One of the judge's favorite mantras — there were several — was that she was not going to do anything that might lead to the reversal of her decision. In other words, she admitted not once but a hundred times that she was playing to the royal boxes. She saw this case as one that would advance her career. She is right insofar as a great number of her constituents can now put a face to her hood and even jurisdictions outside of Florida are now acquainted with Miami-Dade's version of Judge Judy (or is that an oxymoron?). But publicity is not enough for advancement. She must also exhibit judicial probity and the appellate court would be the sole judge of that. Rather than do her best and be judged accordingty, Judge Cohen has strained for the last 6 months to divine the appellate court's wisdom in this matter, hoping that by second-guessing them she won't herself be second-guessed.
Well, she's going to get her long-awaited report card. In fact, she even begged her judges to act quickly and deliberately in rendering what she hopes will be the highest grades. It would not surprise us if she were disappointed in her expectations. Then we would have to add ignorance of the law to all her other judicial shortcomings. It is doubtful whether her career can survive a reversal. It is one thing to act like an ass and quite another to be certified as an ass. She forgets that there is another audience that will be judging her — her constituents. The comings and goings of other politicians are mostly inscrutable. A politician-judge's actions are all a matter of record and open for public view.
Anything that takes Judge Cohen out of the picture, potentially forever and certainly for a very long time, will benefit Elenita's chances of remaining in this country without the threat posed to her life and liberty by her birth parents.
Castro's Peon Wants to Rewrite U.S. Laws to Favor the Purposes of Tyranny
Rafael Izquierdo is getting a civics lesson from those two great constitutionalists, Ira Kurzban and Magda Montiel-Davis, his Fidel-appointed lawyers. In his name they are now seeking to overturn a state law mandating that in custody cases the child's best interests be held uppermost, contending, instead, that the parent's right to his human chattel be the sole basis for determining custody.
Quite a little man is Rafael Izquierdo. Why he's been in this country less than a year en passant and he's already challenging in court the constitutionality of American laws!
Try doing that in Cuba, guajiro de mi tierra, and see what it gets you. My guess is 15 years. Yes, try it in Cuba, the country where you intend to return your long-suffering daughter that she might suffer even more. And they call you a marginal father? I guess that to reach "unmarginality" one must actually kill a child in front of the judge, well, this judge anyway.
Quite a little man is Rafael Izquierdo. Why he's been in this country less than a year en passant and he's already challenging in court the constitutionality of American laws!
Try doing that in Cuba, guajiro de mi tierra, and see what it gets you. My guess is 15 years. Yes, try it in Cuba, the country where you intend to return your long-suffering daughter that she might suffer even more. And they call you a marginal father? I guess that to reach "unmarginality" one must actually kill a child in front of the judge, well, this judge anyway.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Notable and Ominous: Cuba and Venezuela Melding
"Carlos Lage said once that Cuba had two presidents, and then I just said in Cuba that Venezuela has two presidents too, but we are one single government. We are headed for the [José] Martí-style, Caribbean, South American Confederation of Bolivarian Republics." — Hugo Chávez, on his weekly television show, Alo, Presidente, aired from Santa Clara, Cuba, October 14, 2007
Poor Martí! Surely it was not this that he envisioned as he stood weeping in front of Bolívar's statue in Caracas, where he headed immediately on arriving in that city in 1880. Yes, Martí's dream, Bolívar's dream — the dream of every progressive 19th century Hispanic-American statesman — was to unite all the countries of "Our America" into a grand confederation of states. Thank God, that dream was deferred.
Each of our republics has enough problems without taking on the problems of all the other republics. Our political evolution is compatible but only in those points where compatibility is hardly desirable. Our histories coincide in the period of Spanish despotism and then break off abruptly at the time of independence never to converge in any meaningful way again. Many of the peoples of Central and South America cordially or not so cordially despise one another and harbor old resentments and feuds that hark back to the time of independence, indeed, to the time of the Conquest. The only times in history that they have managed to unite briefly was when they did so to attack a neighbor. Yes, it is true that Europe with its festering immemorial hatreds and rivaries has managed an economic and political consolidation of sorts. Perhaps all their hatreds and resentments were played out in World War II. This is far from the case in Latin America today and it was even more unlikely in Martí's day, when some of the Latin republics actually had hopes of a bright future.
I can prove that Martí wasn't a Communist because he wasn't, but I can't prove that he wasn't a pan-americanist: "When speaking of Latin America, we speak of a people and not of "peoples" intentionally because it does not seem to me that there is more than one from the Rio Grande to Patagonia." He left hundreds of invocations in his writings urging the union of all Hispanic countries. He could be poetic about it: "My fondest wish is to see the people of Latin America, which now live side by side, living soul by soul and hand in hand." Or speak idealistically of "a great Latin nation, not a conqueror like Rome." He even wanted to "equip peaceful armies to march under one banner from the Rio Grande to the Arauco."
Martí believed, of course, that such a union would seal Latin America's independence and frustrate the designs which the U.S. and European powers had on the region in general and Cuba in particular. He never imagined, because his great love for us caused him to idealize and misjudge us, that such a union, far from providing for our mutual defense, might condemn us all to share the same despotic fate; he never saw that we were a greater danger to each other than all the imperialist powers that covetted our lands but disdained our peoples. He never realized that such a union would multiply our vices without multiplying our virtues. Like all who love greatly, he loved us blindly.
Now, as Hugo Chávez said, Martí's dream seems on the verge of being realized, but I do not think that he would approve. Martí has been killed a thousand times since his death by the errors committed both by his own countrymen and the inhabitants of his "greater Hispanic homeland." His legacy has been distorted, his opinions have been falsified and he has been used as a tool by the most ruthless regime ever to exist in the history of the hemisphere modern or ancient. But the union of two tyrannies under the auspices of pan-americanism, and, supposedly, in obedience to his teachings, would be more than he could endure. If it were possible for him to charge the line of artillery one more time on his white steed, he would. This is not what Martí wanted. Or Bolívar. Or any of our prohombres.
Martí would argue that this type of pan-americanism is the negation of his dream, and it is. But it is also the only type of pan-americanism that was ever likely in the first place: despotic nation with despotic nation; mendicant nation with rich nation; insular nation with continental nation (so that the "union" doesn't have to be that tight). Martí should have intuited this. Did he not say that "Countries that do not share common means, though they may have identical ends, cannot pursue together the same object." It follows, then, that nations with common means and identical ends can pursue the same object. Such as Castro's Cuba and Chávez's Venezuela.
Ironically, the only country that could save us from this mutual suicide pact is the United States, which Martí always regarded (not without justification) as "the other," not to say the enemy. "Two condors may live together or two lambs," he observed apropos of the two Americas, "but never a condor and a lamb." Well, now the condor may have to save the lambs, but the condor has no interest whatever in the lambs. It has eyes only for Araby as a continental alliance between the insane and the opportunistic takes shape which promises to destroy every vestige of freedom and democracy in the Americas for the next 100 years.
Poor Martí! Surely it was not this that he envisioned as he stood weeping in front of Bolívar's statue in Caracas, where he headed immediately on arriving in that city in 1880. Yes, Martí's dream, Bolívar's dream — the dream of every progressive 19th century Hispanic-American statesman — was to unite all the countries of "Our America" into a grand confederation of states. Thank God, that dream was deferred.
Each of our republics has enough problems without taking on the problems of all the other republics. Our political evolution is compatible but only in those points where compatibility is hardly desirable. Our histories coincide in the period of Spanish despotism and then break off abruptly at the time of independence never to converge in any meaningful way again. Many of the peoples of Central and South America cordially or not so cordially despise one another and harbor old resentments and feuds that hark back to the time of independence, indeed, to the time of the Conquest. The only times in history that they have managed to unite briefly was when they did so to attack a neighbor. Yes, it is true that Europe with its festering immemorial hatreds and rivaries has managed an economic and political consolidation of sorts. Perhaps all their hatreds and resentments were played out in World War II. This is far from the case in Latin America today and it was even more unlikely in Martí's day, when some of the Latin republics actually had hopes of a bright future.
I can prove that Martí wasn't a Communist because he wasn't, but I can't prove that he wasn't a pan-americanist: "When speaking of Latin America, we speak of a people and not of "peoples" intentionally because it does not seem to me that there is more than one from the Rio Grande to Patagonia." He left hundreds of invocations in his writings urging the union of all Hispanic countries. He could be poetic about it: "My fondest wish is to see the people of Latin America, which now live side by side, living soul by soul and hand in hand." Or speak idealistically of "a great Latin nation, not a conqueror like Rome." He even wanted to "equip peaceful armies to march under one banner from the Rio Grande to the Arauco."
Martí believed, of course, that such a union would seal Latin America's independence and frustrate the designs which the U.S. and European powers had on the region in general and Cuba in particular. He never imagined, because his great love for us caused him to idealize and misjudge us, that such a union, far from providing for our mutual defense, might condemn us all to share the same despotic fate; he never saw that we were a greater danger to each other than all the imperialist powers that covetted our lands but disdained our peoples. He never realized that such a union would multiply our vices without multiplying our virtues. Like all who love greatly, he loved us blindly.
Now, as Hugo Chávez said, Martí's dream seems on the verge of being realized, but I do not think that he would approve. Martí has been killed a thousand times since his death by the errors committed both by his own countrymen and the inhabitants of his "greater Hispanic homeland." His legacy has been distorted, his opinions have been falsified and he has been used as a tool by the most ruthless regime ever to exist in the history of the hemisphere modern or ancient. But the union of two tyrannies under the auspices of pan-americanism, and, supposedly, in obedience to his teachings, would be more than he could endure. If it were possible for him to charge the line of artillery one more time on his white steed, he would. This is not what Martí wanted. Or Bolívar. Or any of our prohombres.
Martí would argue that this type of pan-americanism is the negation of his dream, and it is. But it is also the only type of pan-americanism that was ever likely in the first place: despotic nation with despotic nation; mendicant nation with rich nation; insular nation with continental nation (so that the "union" doesn't have to be that tight). Martí should have intuited this. Did he not say that "Countries that do not share common means, though they may have identical ends, cannot pursue together the same object." It follows, then, that nations with common means and identical ends can pursue the same object. Such as Castro's Cuba and Chávez's Venezuela.
Ironically, the only country that could save us from this mutual suicide pact is the United States, which Martí always regarded (not without justification) as "the other," not to say the enemy. "Two condors may live together or two lambs," he observed apropos of the two Americas, "but never a condor and a lamb." Well, now the condor may have to save the lambs, but the condor has no interest whatever in the lambs. It has eyes only for Araby as a continental alliance between the insane and the opportunistic takes shape which promises to destroy every vestige of freedom and democracy in the Americas for the next 100 years.
Fidel & Hugo: Two Song and Dance Men
The tyrant has reappeared as a sideshow attraction on Hugo Chávez's travelling circus of the absurd, which he took to Santa Clara, Cuba this week-end in honor of the 40th anniversary of "Che" Guevara's ajusticiamiento (bringing to justice).
In what must have been a foretaste of hell for him, Castro was visited for 4 hours by his putative heir, who serenaded him with revolutionary songs and assured him over and over again that he would always live in the air, the land and the sea, which, of course, is just what every dying man wants to hear. Castro took all this in stride. I guess the only time he feels relevant any more is when he is allowed to commune with foreign leaders, who are advised beforehand to pay no heed to anything he says. For foreign dignitaries, an interview with Fidel is the Cuban equivalent of a trip to Madame Tussaud's Museum, except that there is only one wax figurine on display.
Chávez also presented Castro with a painting he had made while imprisoned for his aborted coup in the 1990s. It was described as a "dark-colored painting that showed the bars of his cell and a night scene beyond, with a full red moon and a guard tower in the distance." The description alone makes one cringe. Castro, of course, could not have been more pleased if he had received a Goya: "No one knows the merit that this has, that you did this!" This is exactly what one would tell a 5-year old who just presented you with his latest crayon composition. Castro also had his pretensions in his youth, which proved very costly for the Cuban people to sustain later; but, at least, art never interested him except as booty.
Chávez's painting was instructive, however, as an example of the lengths to which democracies will go to placate their bitterest foes even when they are behind bars. I think it need hardly be said that none of the 2 million prisoners who have passed through Castro's jails in the last 48 years has ever been allowed to paint landscapes in his cell, much less been provided with easel and paints, not even those who were actually artists. Not since Castro himself was incarcerated by Batista and allowed a suite of rooms in prison, his own library, a courtyard for his private use, and all the provisions he requested, including Serrano hams, calamari and H. Upmann cigars, was any prisoner in Cuba indulged as Castro was during his brief confinement, which he himself compared to a stay at a luxury resort.
If Castro had been of an artistic vent, he would no doubt have been provided with painting supplies as well. But his talents were strictly histrionic, and a full-length mirror was all that he required to entertain himself for hours mouthing the speeches of Primo de Rivera and Benito Mussolini while copying their every gesture. Too bad these ephemeral "self-portraits" vanished immediately into the second-dimension, a gallery of madness, in its incipient stages, which it was impossible to exhibit to an incredulous world.
Castro also made a live call to Chávez's television show "Alo, Presidente," and stayed on the line for the full hour. This was certainly distressing since before this appearance he had either been time-delayed or heavily edited. The fact that "cut and paste" wasn't necessary in this instance bespeaks more than just borderline lucidity. But this indication of mental progress was in part offset by his appearance in the official photographs with Chávez, which showed that physically, at least, there is no improvement. It is, and has always been, a matter of time.
In what must have been a foretaste of hell for him, Castro was visited for 4 hours by his putative heir, who serenaded him with revolutionary songs and assured him over and over again that he would always live in the air, the land and the sea, which, of course, is just what every dying man wants to hear. Castro took all this in stride. I guess the only time he feels relevant any more is when he is allowed to commune with foreign leaders, who are advised beforehand to pay no heed to anything he says. For foreign dignitaries, an interview with Fidel is the Cuban equivalent of a trip to Madame Tussaud's Museum, except that there is only one wax figurine on display.
Chávez also presented Castro with a painting he had made while imprisoned for his aborted coup in the 1990s. It was described as a "dark-colored painting that showed the bars of his cell and a night scene beyond, with a full red moon and a guard tower in the distance." The description alone makes one cringe. Castro, of course, could not have been more pleased if he had received a Goya: "No one knows the merit that this has, that you did this!" This is exactly what one would tell a 5-year old who just presented you with his latest crayon composition. Castro also had his pretensions in his youth, which proved very costly for the Cuban people to sustain later; but, at least, art never interested him except as booty.
Chávez's painting was instructive, however, as an example of the lengths to which democracies will go to placate their bitterest foes even when they are behind bars. I think it need hardly be said that none of the 2 million prisoners who have passed through Castro's jails in the last 48 years has ever been allowed to paint landscapes in his cell, much less been provided with easel and paints, not even those who were actually artists. Not since Castro himself was incarcerated by Batista and allowed a suite of rooms in prison, his own library, a courtyard for his private use, and all the provisions he requested, including Serrano hams, calamari and H. Upmann cigars, was any prisoner in Cuba indulged as Castro was during his brief confinement, which he himself compared to a stay at a luxury resort.
If Castro had been of an artistic vent, he would no doubt have been provided with painting supplies as well. But his talents were strictly histrionic, and a full-length mirror was all that he required to entertain himself for hours mouthing the speeches of Primo de Rivera and Benito Mussolini while copying their every gesture. Too bad these ephemeral "self-portraits" vanished immediately into the second-dimension, a gallery of madness, in its incipient stages, which it was impossible to exhibit to an incredulous world.
Castro also made a live call to Chávez's television show "Alo, Presidente," and stayed on the line for the full hour. This was certainly distressing since before this appearance he had either been time-delayed or heavily edited. The fact that "cut and paste" wasn't necessary in this instance bespeaks more than just borderline lucidity. But this indication of mental progress was in part offset by his appearance in the official photographs with Chávez, which showed that physically, at least, there is no improvement. It is, and has always been, a matter of time.
Notable & Quotable: What Spaniards Really Think About "Che" Guevara
[The following post, which was published in the Spanish blog En Defensa de Occidente (In Defense of the West) and which we have translated here, reflects accurately the true sentiments of real Spaniards towards Communism in Cuba, and, in particular, the lionizing of the Argentine filibuster Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Its description of Guevara's cravenly conduct in his last hours is especially noteworthy. When young and in possesion of their faculties, if not in possession of themselves, and about to face death prematurely, men will synthesize their entire lives in their last few hours of concentrated living. There is no better example of this than "Che" Guevara. He died like the coward that he was and always had been, begging for his life like a woman, indeed, as few women who have found themselves in his position ever have, stopping short only of offering his body for the gratification of his captors (although if he had, surely they would not have said so). We might note here that the author does not mention the most notorious instance of Guevara's cowardice before his Bolivian misadventure -- when he shot himself in the head with his own rifle on first hearing the news that the "Yanquis" had landed in the Bay of Pigs. It was claimed at the time that this was an "accident." But even the worst marksman would find it difficult to shoot himself accidentally in the head with his own rifle.
Of especial interest to Hispanophobes at Babalú blog and past adherents of BUCL's "Campaign Against Spain," should be the fact that Spaniards share their fascination with "Che" merchandise, except that far from being offended by it they correctly regard it as a posthumuous and well-deserved repudiation of the man and everything he stood for, which bolsters in them, as it should in everyone, the hope that perfect justice is not a perfect fiction. — MAT]
Forty Years After Justice Was Done, Or the Empire of the T-Shirts
40 years ago, a humble Bolivian soldier, who lived honestly from the work of protecting his country's sovereignty, fired two shots at an Argentine psychopath and racist whose objective had been to foster genocide in the soldier's country in order to create there the same "utopia" that he had founded in Cuba also through genocide. Ernesto Guevara murdered with his own hands 200 Cubans whom he did not know but nonetheless executed as a means to control by terror a people who were not his people and whom he didn't know either. Guevara was a coward in battle; the anti-Batista guerrillas who survived Castro's purges after Batista's overthrow remember Guevara hiding or disappearing at the most dangerous moments. He only "fought" in earnest when his enemies were tied to posts and about to be executed; then and only then, did the assassin take out his gun, point it and proceed to "make Revolution."
Guevara went to Africa to defend the interests of a sinister warlord; he was to be the "white face" of his movement. His innate racism made him believe that the little "pickininnies" would worship him as a living god; but the truth was that the Africans soon saw what a coward he was when he dove under a table at the sound of gunfire. His constant whining at such times was just too audible and they used him for the only thing he was good for — to harangue and indoctrinate the soldiers. Eventually they tired of his interminable chatter and put him on a plane back to the Castroite paradise. "How very ungrateful those negroes," he pronounced them in Havana.
Only one thing meant more to him than shooting his victims in the back of the neck, and that was his ego. The monomaniac was not content to rest, and so he set out for Bolivia, which to him was an exotic land filled with puny Indians who were also going to fall at his feet because he was "white and intelligent." He placed himself in the very heart of Bolivia with a foco of guerrillas, all of them very white. The result? A disaster. The inhabitants of the area quickly tired of the Argentine psychopath's threats and tantrums and decided to reveal his whereabouts to the Army, which had been looking for him.
Guevara had been spotted everywhere and it was hard to fix his location; finally, the peasants ascertained where he was and presented themselves at the local barracks to let the Army know where they could find "the white devil" who had tormented and threatened them with his endless harangues, so that the soldiers could finish him off before they did.
The Bolivian Army sent a patrol on reconnaisance to the area and found them exactly where the Indians had indicated. In a direct attack on the guerrillas they quickly apprehended the "children of Che." Because of his position as "Che" Guevara and the fact that he considered himself irreplaceable, Ernesto surrendered immediately without resistance, informing his captors of his identity and how he was more valuable to them alive than dead. He was detained and jailed in a much more comfortable cell and with better food than what Cuban prisoners were afforded in their last hours. A coward who wanted only to elude the consequences of his actions, he spent all night trying to bribe the humble soldiers: "Fidel would pay whatever you asked for me;" "I have many friends in Moscow who would gladly compensate you;" "My family in Argentina has considerable assets and loves me very much... they would do anything for me." But it was unavailing, and as the hours passed he began to scream hysterically: "You are going to find out who I am!;" "Don't dare to lay a finger on me!" and, later, unmanned and sobbing incontrollably, he pleaded for his life: "You can't kill me... I am a defenseless human being... please don't kill me..."
The same humble Bolivian soldier who captured Guevara was accorded the honor of executing him. Without thinking it twice, he did. The rabid dog was dead and his body was put on public display, as they did in the Old West with notorious criminals. A hundred peasants filed pass his remains, relieved no doubt to see that the menace who had threatened them was dead.
His death was the end of him but the beginning of one of the important industries to emerge in the last 40 years. "El Che" has proved to be a lucrative franchise for the marketting of all types of merchandise: first, it was posters with the psychopath's image; then T-shirts became a real boom, and eventually, everything else — berets, keychains, cigarette lighters, sneakers, swimsuits, towels, beachballs, flags, ashtrays, underwear, diapers, beers, colognes... everything. If you can imagine it, they can make it. Untold millions of euros are generated annually by the "Che" franchise. At 22 euros ($50) per T-shirt, tell me, how could anyone lose his shirt?
The only thing that they have not been able to turn to good account is his theoretical books, which have never sold well much less been read outside of Cuba, where reading them is obligatory. Of course, this is understandable since something so soporific has no commercial possibilities, especially when he is the same embezzler in his books that he was in life, going so far as to steal even the phrase "It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees," which does not belong to him. That phrase belongs to Emiliano Zapata, but it was attributed to him by the merchandisers because it sold more T-shirts, posters, toilet paper, condoms, plungers and I don't know what else.
Since his death, Ernesto Guevara has become a kind of MacDonald's of novelty goods. From an enemy of capitalism, the Argentine psychopath devolved into its stooge — "The King of Novelty Merchandise."
[Correction: The Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata did not say it; neither did Spain's "La Pasionaria," who made it famous. Of course, the words are Martí's].
http://endefensadeoccidente.blogia.com/2007/100902-hace-40-anos-se-hizo-justicia-o-el-imperio-de-las-camisetas-del-che.php#comentarios
Of especial interest to Hispanophobes at Babalú blog and past adherents of BUCL's "Campaign Against Spain," should be the fact that Spaniards share their fascination with "Che" merchandise, except that far from being offended by it they correctly regard it as a posthumuous and well-deserved repudiation of the man and everything he stood for, which bolsters in them, as it should in everyone, the hope that perfect justice is not a perfect fiction. — MAT]
Forty Years After Justice Was Done, Or the Empire of the T-Shirts
40 years ago, a humble Bolivian soldier, who lived honestly from the work of protecting his country's sovereignty, fired two shots at an Argentine psychopath and racist whose objective had been to foster genocide in the soldier's country in order to create there the same "utopia" that he had founded in Cuba also through genocide. Ernesto Guevara murdered with his own hands 200 Cubans whom he did not know but nonetheless executed as a means to control by terror a people who were not his people and whom he didn't know either. Guevara was a coward in battle; the anti-Batista guerrillas who survived Castro's purges after Batista's overthrow remember Guevara hiding or disappearing at the most dangerous moments. He only "fought" in earnest when his enemies were tied to posts and about to be executed; then and only then, did the assassin take out his gun, point it and proceed to "make Revolution."
Guevara went to Africa to defend the interests of a sinister warlord; he was to be the "white face" of his movement. His innate racism made him believe that the little "pickininnies" would worship him as a living god; but the truth was that the Africans soon saw what a coward he was when he dove under a table at the sound of gunfire. His constant whining at such times was just too audible and they used him for the only thing he was good for — to harangue and indoctrinate the soldiers. Eventually they tired of his interminable chatter and put him on a plane back to the Castroite paradise. "How very ungrateful those negroes," he pronounced them in Havana.
Only one thing meant more to him than shooting his victims in the back of the neck, and that was his ego. The monomaniac was not content to rest, and so he set out for Bolivia, which to him was an exotic land filled with puny Indians who were also going to fall at his feet because he was "white and intelligent." He placed himself in the very heart of Bolivia with a foco of guerrillas, all of them very white. The result? A disaster. The inhabitants of the area quickly tired of the Argentine psychopath's threats and tantrums and decided to reveal his whereabouts to the Army, which had been looking for him.
Guevara had been spotted everywhere and it was hard to fix his location; finally, the peasants ascertained where he was and presented themselves at the local barracks to let the Army know where they could find "the white devil" who had tormented and threatened them with his endless harangues, so that the soldiers could finish him off before they did.
The Bolivian Army sent a patrol on reconnaisance to the area and found them exactly where the Indians had indicated. In a direct attack on the guerrillas they quickly apprehended the "children of Che." Because of his position as "Che" Guevara and the fact that he considered himself irreplaceable, Ernesto surrendered immediately without resistance, informing his captors of his identity and how he was more valuable to them alive than dead. He was detained and jailed in a much more comfortable cell and with better food than what Cuban prisoners were afforded in their last hours. A coward who wanted only to elude the consequences of his actions, he spent all night trying to bribe the humble soldiers: "Fidel would pay whatever you asked for me;" "I have many friends in Moscow who would gladly compensate you;" "My family in Argentina has considerable assets and loves me very much... they would do anything for me." But it was unavailing, and as the hours passed he began to scream hysterically: "You are going to find out who I am!;" "Don't dare to lay a finger on me!" and, later, unmanned and sobbing incontrollably, he pleaded for his life: "You can't kill me... I am a defenseless human being... please don't kill me..."
The same humble Bolivian soldier who captured Guevara was accorded the honor of executing him. Without thinking it twice, he did. The rabid dog was dead and his body was put on public display, as they did in the Old West with notorious criminals. A hundred peasants filed pass his remains, relieved no doubt to see that the menace who had threatened them was dead.
His death was the end of him but the beginning of one of the important industries to emerge in the last 40 years. "El Che" has proved to be a lucrative franchise for the marketting of all types of merchandise: first, it was posters with the psychopath's image; then T-shirts became a real boom, and eventually, everything else — berets, keychains, cigarette lighters, sneakers, swimsuits, towels, beachballs, flags, ashtrays, underwear, diapers, beers, colognes... everything. If you can imagine it, they can make it. Untold millions of euros are generated annually by the "Che" franchise. At 22 euros ($50) per T-shirt, tell me, how could anyone lose his shirt?
The only thing that they have not been able to turn to good account is his theoretical books, which have never sold well much less been read outside of Cuba, where reading them is obligatory. Of course, this is understandable since something so soporific has no commercial possibilities, especially when he is the same embezzler in his books that he was in life, going so far as to steal even the phrase "It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees," which does not belong to him. That phrase belongs to Emiliano Zapata, but it was attributed to him by the merchandisers because it sold more T-shirts, posters, toilet paper, condoms, plungers and I don't know what else.
Since his death, Ernesto Guevara has become a kind of MacDonald's of novelty goods. From an enemy of capitalism, the Argentine psychopath devolved into its stooge — "The King of Novelty Merchandise."
[Correction: The Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata did not say it; neither did Spain's "La Pasionaria," who made it famous. Of course, the words are Martí's].
http://endefensadeoccidente.blogia.com/2007/100902-hace-40-anos-se-hizo-justicia-o-el-imperio-de-las-camisetas-del-che.php#comentarios
Spaniards in Solidarity With Cuba
Contrary to the expectations of Hispanophobes, the "solidarity" announced in the logo of the Solidaridad con Cuba blog is from young Spaniards for a free and democratic Cuba:
We are a group of young Spaniards who endeavor to show our solidarity with democratic Cubans and their families. Spaniards have cultural and historical ties to Cuba. That sister nation suffers from the worst dictatorship in Hispanic-America. For 46 years [in 2005] Cubans have been victimized by a regime that does not allow them to realize their potential as human beings, and which besides denying them their political rights has also immersed them in economic and moral misery. Dissidents who fight within Cuba for peaceful change find themselves in an especially precarious situation, since in addition to the hardships faced by all Cubans they must also contend with persecution and reprisals at the hands of the government, which often takes the form of being denied employment by the State. Worse still is the predicament of nearly 300 political prisoners and their families, who often live in extreme poverty, denied the presence of their loved ones and forced to travel long distances to see them.
The vast majority of Cubans find themselves in a difficult situation and anything that can be done to help them is a positive contribution. We think that these democrats and their families, who are often forgotten, are most deserving and needful of our solidarity, which, at the same time, will contribute to peaceful democratic change and progress in Cuba.
Ricardo Carreras Lario
Presidente
Juan Fauquier Pina de Morais
Vicepresidente
Let's see how many BUCLers will link to this blog:
We are a group of young Spaniards who endeavor to show our solidarity with democratic Cubans and their families. Spaniards have cultural and historical ties to Cuba. That sister nation suffers from the worst dictatorship in Hispanic-America. For 46 years [in 2005] Cubans have been victimized by a regime that does not allow them to realize their potential as human beings, and which besides denying them their political rights has also immersed them in economic and moral misery. Dissidents who fight within Cuba for peaceful change find themselves in an especially precarious situation, since in addition to the hardships faced by all Cubans they must also contend with persecution and reprisals at the hands of the government, which often takes the form of being denied employment by the State. Worse still is the predicament of nearly 300 political prisoners and their families, who often live in extreme poverty, denied the presence of their loved ones and forced to travel long distances to see them.
The vast majority of Cubans find themselves in a difficult situation and anything that can be done to help them is a positive contribution. We think that these democrats and their families, who are often forgotten, are most deserving and needful of our solidarity, which, at the same time, will contribute to peaceful democratic change and progress in Cuba.
Ricardo Carreras Lario
Presidente
Juan Fauquier Pina de Morais
Vicepresidente
Let's see how many BUCLers will link to this blog:
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Carlos Victoria (1950-2007) RIP
The Cuban novelist and short story writer Carlos Victoria, whom El Figaro called the "Miami Maupassant" — erring only in the "Miami" part — is dead. The tragedy is even greater because he died by his own hand. Of course, it was not Victoria, beset by cancer, who took his own life. Reinaldo Arenas, before his death, named the party that he considered responsible for it. The same malefactor also brought about Victoria's early demise and truncated the lives of countless others. A great writer, a national writer, cannot live without nourishing the roots of his inspiration in his native soil. The spirit dries up and so does the pen. Even Martí felt that emptiness at the end of his life, and the months that he spent in the Cuban countryside before his death in battle were the most intense and rewarding of his life. He went to Cuba to restore his spirit and to die. For Victoria and other Cuban artists, it is a choice that doesn't exist. Create in freedom but rootless, or create without freedom but in one's homeland — neither is the ideal environment but that is the choice that generations of Cuban artists have had to make. After the regime refused not only to publish his works but destroyed all his existing manuscripts, there was nothing for Carlos Victoria to do but leave before it destroyed his mind or ended his life.
One can't know, of course, if the writers that fell afoul of the Castro regime would have achieved as much as they did without having to struggle for every expression of personal and artistic freedom, indeed, for every word. Adversity is also a stimulus to genius. We would have been content to see Arenas, Victoria and their entire generation less brilliant but happier. Posterity, we are sure, however, will not surrender even the smallest part of their legacy.
One can't know, of course, if the writers that fell afoul of the Castro regime would have achieved as much as they did without having to struggle for every expression of personal and artistic freedom, indeed, for every word. Adversity is also a stimulus to genius. We would have been content to see Arenas, Victoria and their entire generation less brilliant but happier. Posterity, we are sure, however, will not surrender even the smallest part of their legacy.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize; Cuban Dissidents Again Ignored
Albert Arnold Gore has been awarded the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize. America's national joke is now the Norwegians' paradigm of modernity and savior of the planet. Jerry Lewis must feel relieved that now somebody else represents the cultural divide between the U.S. and Europe. Of course, Lewis actually claimed to be a comedian.
We were surprised that Gore was not credited with the invention of the internet in his citation. What is one more little lie compared to the monumental fraud of global warming, which has just been endorsed by that other dimwit who beat Al Gore to the prize he really wanted in 2000. The Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize are, after all, only consolation prizes; more fame and money for someone who really wants power.
What makes this award especially noxious to me is that no Cuban human rights advocate has ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Frauds like Rigoberta Menchú and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, supporters of Fidel Castro and the "Cuban model," have been honored by the Nobel Committee, but never those who have confronted peacefully the world's most savage and longest-ruling dictatorship.
Perhaps if Marta Beatriz Roque adopted the garb of an Arawak maiden or Dr. Darsi Ferrer formed a Cuban committee in solidarity with Mookie Wilson, the Cuban dissidents would rise to the moral greatness of the inventor of dynamite.
The Nobel Peace Prize has become as politicized and craven as the old Stalin Peace Prize, and some day soon it will become just as embarrassing and shameful to be a Nobel laureate as it is to be a Stalin laureate.
We were surprised that Gore was not credited with the invention of the internet in his citation. What is one more little lie compared to the monumental fraud of global warming, which has just been endorsed by that other dimwit who beat Al Gore to the prize he really wanted in 2000. The Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize are, after all, only consolation prizes; more fame and money for someone who really wants power.
What makes this award especially noxious to me is that no Cuban human rights advocate has ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Frauds like Rigoberta Menchú and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, supporters of Fidel Castro and the "Cuban model," have been honored by the Nobel Committee, but never those who have confronted peacefully the world's most savage and longest-ruling dictatorship.
Perhaps if Marta Beatriz Roque adopted the garb of an Arawak maiden or Dr. Darsi Ferrer formed a Cuban committee in solidarity with Mookie Wilson, the Cuban dissidents would rise to the moral greatness of the inventor of dynamite.
The Nobel Peace Prize has become as politicized and craven as the old Stalin Peace Prize, and some day soon it will become just as embarrassing and shameful to be a Nobel laureate as it is to be a Stalin laureate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
