We extend our congratulations to Henry Louis Gómez upon his appointment today as Babalú's Managing Editor. It is a distinction long overdue since he has shaped for better or worse (well, worse anyway) Babalú's destinies over the last three years no less than Founding Editor Val Prieto.
Some may remember that a few weeks ago Henry was introduced on a Canadian (or was it Jamaican?) radio show as Babalú's "managing editor." Well, the prophecy has come to past and "The Conductor" is no longer in the caboose with Babalú's 15 other contributing writers.
Some day, perhaps, the contributing writers may be promoted en masse to contributing editors, but we don't think so: Too many bites out of the Babalunian apple leaves Val polishing a knob.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. Prieto Builds His Dream House
Val should place a call to Habitat for Humanity. Jimmy Carter, if he can still hold a hammer, would be glad to knock a few holes in his sheetrock before moving on to the next "Photo Opportunity for Humanity."
When Val triumphantly announced his kitchen-beautiful project, in the midst of the worst housing slump in history, I pointed out to him that it might not be the best time to stake the house on the house. Since Val is a construction project manager and his wife a realtor, it shouldn't have been necessary to point that out to him.
Just as he himself predicted, the kitchen project grew like a fungus to encompass the entire house, every room of which appears to be in various stages of renovation. His shower doesn't work and his kitchen sink hasn't been hooked up yet. Like someone else that we all know, Val is very good at levelling; it's the building part that he can't seem to master. That other guy has been able to escape the consequences of a crumbling economy and his own fiscal irresponsibility for 50 years. Val, by his own admission, has not been as lucky.
Rather than following in footsteps of another fellow Cuban, Bob Vila, Val has unwittingly recreated that PBS series where a family agrees to live as the pioneers did in the 19th century, or, sadly, as Cubans do today. Having "busted his budget" and reached the limits of what the Time-Life Library of Do-It-Yourself books can teach an amateur, Val was left with no choice but to appeal for help to his family of readers, who are by no means unaccustumed to such bail-outs. The foe of remittances or of any kind of assistance to his starving countrymen in Cuba has asked his readers to furnish him with a pro-bono plumber and pro-bono tile-installer, as well as discounts or donations of sundry hardware and construction supplies.
Where is the Val, we ask, who admonished his readers not to send money to their relatives in Cuba but fishing lines? Remember? "Give a man a fish and he will eat for one day, teach him to fish and he'll have food for a lifetime." Except, of course, in Cuba, where fishing is a criminal offence and telling someone to "go fish" is like telling him to go to hell.
Happily, we live in a free country where fishing is not illegal. I suggest that instead of plumbers or other voluntary workers and in lieu of building supplies, his readers send Val fishing poles, lines, hooks and bait. Yes, worms, lots of worms. He can sell the fish off his pick-up truck on Coral Way and with the proceeds buy supplies and hire illegal workers to fix the mess which he has made of the Villa Valentina.
The Villa Valentina
When Val triumphantly announced his kitchen-beautiful project, in the midst of the worst housing slump in history, I pointed out to him that it might not be the best time to stake the house on the house. Since Val is a construction project manager and his wife a realtor, it shouldn't have been necessary to point that out to him.
Just as he himself predicted, the kitchen project grew like a fungus to encompass the entire house, every room of which appears to be in various stages of renovation. His shower doesn't work and his kitchen sink hasn't been hooked up yet. Like someone else that we all know, Val is very good at levelling; it's the building part that he can't seem to master. That other guy has been able to escape the consequences of a crumbling economy and his own fiscal irresponsibility for 50 years. Val, by his own admission, has not been as lucky.
Rather than following in footsteps of another fellow Cuban, Bob Vila, Val has unwittingly recreated that PBS series where a family agrees to live as the pioneers did in the 19th century, or, sadly, as Cubans do today. Having "busted his budget" and reached the limits of what the Time-Life Library of Do-It-Yourself books can teach an amateur, Val was left with no choice but to appeal for help to his family of readers, who are by no means unaccustumed to such bail-outs. The foe of remittances or of any kind of assistance to his starving countrymen in Cuba has asked his readers to furnish him with a pro-bono plumber and pro-bono tile-installer, as well as discounts or donations of sundry hardware and construction supplies.
Where is the Val, we ask, who admonished his readers not to send money to their relatives in Cuba but fishing lines? Remember? "Give a man a fish and he will eat for one day, teach him to fish and he'll have food for a lifetime." Except, of course, in Cuba, where fishing is a criminal offence and telling someone to "go fish" is like telling him to go to hell.
Happily, we live in a free country where fishing is not illegal. I suggest that instead of plumbers or other voluntary workers and in lieu of building supplies, his readers send Val fishing poles, lines, hooks and bait. Yes, worms, lots of worms. He can sell the fish off his pick-up truck on Coral Way and with the proceeds buy supplies and hire illegal workers to fix the mess which he has made of the Villa Valentina.
The Villa Valentina
Monday, June 9, 2008
A Bout With Gout
Val spent all week-end on his sofa nursing his swollen big toe. This is what gout is: crystals of uric acid deposit in the big toe, causing it to engorge as if the bone were going to rip through the skin at any moment. It is one of the worst pains known to man and only man, since women don't get it. I guess childbirth is bad enough.
The gout was once known as the "royal disease" because only kings and nobles could eat enough variety of foods to trigger it. If you ate oats and oats only all your life you were not going to get the gout. You'd die of a thousand other diseases and deficiencies, but not gout. As different kinds of food became available to a larger segment of the population, the gout has become more democratic. With Val as a sufferer now, any cachet still attached to the gout is a thing of the past.
I myself had the gout 20 years ago.
One bout and never another since.
There's a little pill that cures its effects within 2 minutes.
Indomethacin.
The first wonder drug.
No one today has to lie abed nursing the gout.
(Unless he wants to).
Take one, Val.
You'll like it.
The gout was once known as the "royal disease" because only kings and nobles could eat enough variety of foods to trigger it. If you ate oats and oats only all your life you were not going to get the gout. You'd die of a thousand other diseases and deficiencies, but not gout. As different kinds of food became available to a larger segment of the population, the gout has become more democratic. With Val as a sufferer now, any cachet still attached to the gout is a thing of the past.
I myself had the gout 20 years ago.
One bout and never another since.
There's a little pill that cures its effects within 2 minutes.
Indomethacin.
The first wonder drug.
No one today has to lie abed nursing the gout.
(Unless he wants to).
Take one, Val.
You'll like it.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
U.S. History 901: America's Black Presidents
If elected in November, Barack Obama would be the first recognizably and admittedly black president of the United States. This will not mean, of course, that he will be the first black president. Or even the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th. I mean "black" as defined in this country, where even one-drop of "black blood" (it's more politically correct to say DNA, nowadays) makes you black regardless of your actual skin color or predominant ancestry. That "One-Drop Rule" remains virtually a law in social relations in the United States, accepted by common consent by both blacks and whites. It is a kind of continuity with a racist past that belies all real progress in fighting institutionalized racism. As Martí said, "Laws can be expunged from the code books but the attitudes which gave rise to them cannot be as easily erased from human relations."
In the days of slavery the more savage masters would auction off their own progeny with their mulatto concubines who were often as white as their fathers. Since legally they were considered black and stamped with the mark of Ham (that is, condemned biblically to be slaves), their actual color made no difference. Sometimes, however, the masters were not completely denatured and freed their biracial children. It is these who, if they could "pass" for white, would generally cross the color line, that is, they would uproot themselves literally to another part of the country and assume the identity and status of their fathers.
Naturally they married whites who often did not know their spouses were of mixed ancestry. Sometimes the birth of a child would announce that fact with tragic consequences. More likely, however, the transition to white would continue without setback and eventually be completely consummated in a generation or two. The final stage, of course, would be reached when even the descendents of those fair-skinned slaves had no inkling of their family's secret history and considered themselves and were recognized by the world as white. It is through these "subversive" individuals, white by choice and predominance of ancestry, that America's "black" presidents are descended.
There have been six U.S. presidents who are reputed to have had black ancestors: Thomas Jefferson; Andrew Jackson; Abraham Lincoln, Warren G. Harding; Calvin Coolidge; and Dwight D. Eisenhower. The eighth is still living today. We have already dedicated a post to Jimmy Carter's greatest distinction (one to which he has never staked aclaim). We'll only remark here that it is certainly ironic that during the craze over Alex Haley's Roots a man of color occupied the White House whose own roots were of interest to no one.
It was otherwise with another of America's worst presidents, Warren G. Harding, whose putative black ancestry was a matter of great national contention, with books and pamphlets written both to defend or challenge the allegation and federal seizure and destruction of imprints that asserted that America had "inadvertently elected its first Negro president" in 1920.
Throughout most of his adult life, and especially after he entered politics in his native Ohio, Harding had been dogged with rumors about his ancestry. He never denied those rumors, and when pressed to do so by Republican leaders on the eve of the presidential election, Senator Harding is reputed to have answered: "How should I know if one of my ancestors might have jumped the fence?" For the time, and given what was at stake, this answer was altogether too flippant to be considered anything but an admission.
The first to accuse Harding publicly of being a black man was Harding's political opponent and Marion, Ohio's richest man, Amos King. He was also Harding's father-in-law. King denounced and threatened to disinherit his daughter Florence for "polluting the family" when she married Harding against his wishes. It was King who approached Professor William Estabrook Chancellor, of Wooster College, Ohio, and prevailed on him to compile a genealogy of the Harding family which detailed Warren's black ancestry through a great-grandmother and presented dozens of affidavits from elderly residents of Marion who had personally known several generations of the Harding family and attested to their "black blood." In most states at the time, one black great-grandparent sufficed for someone to be considered black himself and subject to Jim Crow and all other disabilities imposed on people of color at the time, including the proscription against interracial marriage, which was a criminal offense in most states, including Ohio.
In retaliation for exposing Harding, Chancellor was fired by Wooster College and the entire edition of Chancellor's book was seized by the Justice Department in 1922, shipped by boxcar to Washington , D.C. and burned there. If five copies had not survived, today this story would probably not be given much credence. Some contend that Harding purchased the entire edition from Chancellor in what amounted to blackmail. Chancellor lived to almost 100, dying 40 years after Harding, but refused ever to discuss the book again though granting many interviews in which he disclaimed any association with it.
Harding had no issue with his wife Florence, who was several years his senior. Since her father left her his fortune after all it is presumed that an agreement was reached between them that she would not bear Harding's children. Harding did have two daughters out of wedlock with different women. In 1963, his letters to one of his illegimate daughters surfaced and by agreement with the Harding family were acquired by the Library of Congress and sealed for 50 years. They are scheduled to be open to public view in 2014. Then Harding's secret may at last be known. If anybody is still interested.
In the days of slavery the more savage masters would auction off their own progeny with their mulatto concubines who were often as white as their fathers. Since legally they were considered black and stamped with the mark of Ham (that is, condemned biblically to be slaves), their actual color made no difference. Sometimes, however, the masters were not completely denatured and freed their biracial children. It is these who, if they could "pass" for white, would generally cross the color line, that is, they would uproot themselves literally to another part of the country and assume the identity and status of their fathers.
Naturally they married whites who often did not know their spouses were of mixed ancestry. Sometimes the birth of a child would announce that fact with tragic consequences. More likely, however, the transition to white would continue without setback and eventually be completely consummated in a generation or two. The final stage, of course, would be reached when even the descendents of those fair-skinned slaves had no inkling of their family's secret history and considered themselves and were recognized by the world as white. It is through these "subversive" individuals, white by choice and predominance of ancestry, that America's "black" presidents are descended.
There have been six U.S. presidents who are reputed to have had black ancestors: Thomas Jefferson; Andrew Jackson; Abraham Lincoln, Warren G. Harding; Calvin Coolidge; and Dwight D. Eisenhower. The eighth is still living today. We have already dedicated a post to Jimmy Carter's greatest distinction (one to which he has never staked aclaim). We'll only remark here that it is certainly ironic that during the craze over Alex Haley's Roots a man of color occupied the White House whose own roots were of interest to no one.
It was otherwise with another of America's worst presidents, Warren G. Harding, whose putative black ancestry was a matter of great national contention, with books and pamphlets written both to defend or challenge the allegation and federal seizure and destruction of imprints that asserted that America had "inadvertently elected its first Negro president" in 1920.
Throughout most of his adult life, and especially after he entered politics in his native Ohio, Harding had been dogged with rumors about his ancestry. He never denied those rumors, and when pressed to do so by Republican leaders on the eve of the presidential election, Senator Harding is reputed to have answered: "How should I know if one of my ancestors might have jumped the fence?" For the time, and given what was at stake, this answer was altogether too flippant to be considered anything but an admission.
The first to accuse Harding publicly of being a black man was Harding's political opponent and Marion, Ohio's richest man, Amos King. He was also Harding's father-in-law. King denounced and threatened to disinherit his daughter Florence for "polluting the family" when she married Harding against his wishes. It was King who approached Professor William Estabrook Chancellor, of Wooster College, Ohio, and prevailed on him to compile a genealogy of the Harding family which detailed Warren's black ancestry through a great-grandmother and presented dozens of affidavits from elderly residents of Marion who had personally known several generations of the Harding family and attested to their "black blood." In most states at the time, one black great-grandparent sufficed for someone to be considered black himself and subject to Jim Crow and all other disabilities imposed on people of color at the time, including the proscription against interracial marriage, which was a criminal offense in most states, including Ohio.
In retaliation for exposing Harding, Chancellor was fired by Wooster College and the entire edition of Chancellor's book was seized by the Justice Department in 1922, shipped by boxcar to Washington , D.C. and burned there. If five copies had not survived, today this story would probably not be given much credence. Some contend that Harding purchased the entire edition from Chancellor in what amounted to blackmail. Chancellor lived to almost 100, dying 40 years after Harding, but refused ever to discuss the book again though granting many interviews in which he disclaimed any association with it.
Harding had no issue with his wife Florence, who was several years his senior. Since her father left her his fortune after all it is presumed that an agreement was reached between them that she would not bear Harding's children. Harding did have two daughters out of wedlock with different women. In 1963, his letters to one of his illegimate daughters surfaced and by agreement with the Harding family were acquired by the Library of Congress and sealed for 50 years. They are scheduled to be open to public view in 2014. Then Harding's secret may at last be known. If anybody is still interested.
Reflections on the Puerto Rican Day Parade
Today is the Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York. It is a little known fact that the rehearsal for the Puerto Rican parade is known as the Cuban Parade. Last year, I used this occasion for some reflections on our kinship with Puerto Ricans (which is greater than with any other people) and on what became of the shared dream of Martí and Betances more than a century ago:
Cuba y Puerto Rico son...
POSTSCRIPT:
All Cubans that settled in New York before or after the Revolution have fond recollections of and undying gratitude for the Puerto Ricans who paved the way for them and helped them to acclimate to a new society which was less foreign because of them. In the "Comments" section our friend Killcastro relates his own family's experience with Puerto Ricans in New York in the 1960s. It is a very moving story, arroz con gandules for the soul; but what is most remarkable about it is that it is duplicated thousands of times and now forms yet another historical bond between our two kindred countries and peoples. You can fit 15 Puerto Ricos in one Cuba, but only one Puerto Rican heart.
Cuba y Puerto Rico son...
POSTSCRIPT:
All Cubans that settled in New York before or after the Revolution have fond recollections of and undying gratitude for the Puerto Ricans who paved the way for them and helped them to acclimate to a new society which was less foreign because of them. In the "Comments" section our friend Killcastro relates his own family's experience with Puerto Ricans in New York in the 1960s. It is a very moving story, arroz con gandules for the soul; but what is most remarkable about it is that it is duplicated thousands of times and now forms yet another historical bond between our two kindred countries and peoples. You can fit 15 Puerto Ricos in one Cuba, but only one Puerto Rican heart.
Notable & Surrealistic: Henry Louis' Performance Art
"[Obama's] position to "negotiate" with leaders of rogue states is not any sort of a positive. Even the act of meeting in the same room with the President of the United States confers legitimacy on a foreign leader. That's why presidents have been very careful about who they confer that legitimacy on. And that's why it was a scandal when President Clinton literally ran into fidel castro and shook his hand. It should be noted that presidents of both parties have refused to have unconditional talks with the head of castro, inc. There's a reason for that. There's nothing to negotiate UNTIL the regime meets certain preconditions. That's the price of poker. Trying to negotiate with the regime without first getting the long sought concessions from it is like continuing to play that game of poker with a confirmed cheater. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose. What magical words is Barack Obama going to utter that will make raul castro understand that he's been mistaken for all these years? That his murderous ways were wrong? To step down from power voluntarily and face the justice he's been evading all these years? What's he going to ask raul castro? Will he ask raul how it felt to give the order to shoot down two unarmed civilian aircraft over international waters and kill 4 Cuban-Americans? Will he reward him for giving a good answer by loosening sanctions. People that think that negotiating with castro inc will bring anything good are out of their fucking minds. Maybe we should sit down and talk with Charles Manson too about giving him weekend furloughs." -- Henry Louis Gómez, "Rant About Obama," Babalú, June 7, 2008
I've quoted a generous chunk of Henry's "Rant About Obama" because it is a rare, if momentary, reappearance of that other Henry who called himself "The Conductor" and preceded the Bourbonish Henry Louis of today. That primal Henry was not the unctuous and insufferable Henry that has replaced him. That other Henry had common sense while this one is full of high speeches and strange stratagems, but, mostly, he is full of himself. We used to like the old Henry who tilted at The Herald's windmills and ocassionally knocked one down; nobody likes Henry Louis. There hasn't been a transformation like this since Latka Gravas became Vic Ferrari.
Henry Louis understands what is at stake but is constitutionally incapable of applying the only available solution. I had expected, however, that his "Rant about Obama" (which was also a rant about McCain) would conclude with a Val-like declaration that he would be voting for the "old foagie" even if he had to "hold his nose" to do it. After all, Henry Louis is proudly supporting three Cuban congressmen from Florida who have lower conservative ratings than does McCain, who is supposedly "a liberal Democrat in Republican clothing." All three, incidentally, endorsed McCain even before the first primary. They must know something that Henry Louis doesn't know. Still, he doesn't trust their judgment and has no compunction about undermining their interests. In fact, Henry Louis doesn't so much support Ileana and the Brothers Díaz-Balart as he loathes Joe García. Would that he could summon as much despite for Obama for then he would have no problem supporting McCain. But no. He would let an arsonist set fire to his house so that 4 years from now his favorite fireman can wet its ashes with his hose. This is not an exaggeration.
Henry Louis wants Obama to win in November so that after he has laid waste to this country and buried all hopes of a free Cuba in our lifetime, a "real conservative" like Newt Gingrich or Fred Thompson can be swept into the Oval Office on a wave of anti-Obama sentiment in 2012. Well, if anything, it will have to be on the crest of an anti-Obama revolution, not an election. It is presupposing a great deal to think that there will be elections in 2012. In fact, it is presupposing a great deal to think that there will be a Newt Gingrich, a Fred Thompson or even a Henry Louis in 2012.
"I don't believe that Barack Obama is a Communist," Henry Louis assures us. That's what a lot of people were still saying about Fidel in 1959. In fact, there are still people who affirm even after 50 years of Communism that Fidel Castro really isn't a communist. Having in effect asserted that there are no Communists anymore (if Obama isn't one, then indeed there are no Communists), Henry Louis then has the effrontery to say that "McCain has made it clear that he [McCain] doesn't understand that the Communists have not gone away!" So, which is it? Have the Communists gone or not? Is there a threat from the Communists that McCain is ignoring or is there no threat posed by Obama and his cohorts? Henry swings one way or the other, but always manages to hit McCain.
To see a man like Henry Louis attacking a man like John McCain as deficient in his knowledge of communism, a turncoat and unworthy to carry forth the legacy of his friend Ronald Reagan, takes surrealism as far as it can go, out-Dalis Dali and out-Picassos Picasso. The clock is melting and Henry Louis thinks that it will strike the hour of our deliverance four years hence.
I've quoted a generous chunk of Henry's "Rant About Obama" because it is a rare, if momentary, reappearance of that other Henry who called himself "The Conductor" and preceded the Bourbonish Henry Louis of today. That primal Henry was not the unctuous and insufferable Henry that has replaced him. That other Henry had common sense while this one is full of high speeches and strange stratagems, but, mostly, he is full of himself. We used to like the old Henry who tilted at The Herald's windmills and ocassionally knocked one down; nobody likes Henry Louis. There hasn't been a transformation like this since Latka Gravas became Vic Ferrari.
Henry Louis understands what is at stake but is constitutionally incapable of applying the only available solution. I had expected, however, that his "Rant about Obama" (which was also a rant about McCain) would conclude with a Val-like declaration that he would be voting for the "old foagie" even if he had to "hold his nose" to do it. After all, Henry Louis is proudly supporting three Cuban congressmen from Florida who have lower conservative ratings than does McCain, who is supposedly "a liberal Democrat in Republican clothing." All three, incidentally, endorsed McCain even before the first primary. They must know something that Henry Louis doesn't know. Still, he doesn't trust their judgment and has no compunction about undermining their interests. In fact, Henry Louis doesn't so much support Ileana and the Brothers Díaz-Balart as he loathes Joe García. Would that he could summon as much despite for Obama for then he would have no problem supporting McCain. But no. He would let an arsonist set fire to his house so that 4 years from now his favorite fireman can wet its ashes with his hose. This is not an exaggeration.
Henry Louis wants Obama to win in November so that after he has laid waste to this country and buried all hopes of a free Cuba in our lifetime, a "real conservative" like Newt Gingrich or Fred Thompson can be swept into the Oval Office on a wave of anti-Obama sentiment in 2012. Well, if anything, it will have to be on the crest of an anti-Obama revolution, not an election. It is presupposing a great deal to think that there will be elections in 2012. In fact, it is presupposing a great deal to think that there will be a Newt Gingrich, a Fred Thompson or even a Henry Louis in 2012.
"I don't believe that Barack Obama is a Communist," Henry Louis assures us. That's what a lot of people were still saying about Fidel in 1959. In fact, there are still people who affirm even after 50 years of Communism that Fidel Castro really isn't a communist. Having in effect asserted that there are no Communists anymore (if Obama isn't one, then indeed there are no Communists), Henry Louis then has the effrontery to say that "McCain has made it clear that he [McCain] doesn't understand that the Communists have not gone away!" So, which is it? Have the Communists gone or not? Is there a threat from the Communists that McCain is ignoring or is there no threat posed by Obama and his cohorts? Henry swings one way or the other, but always manages to hit McCain.
To see a man like Henry Louis attacking a man like John McCain as deficient in his knowledge of communism, a turncoat and unworthy to carry forth the legacy of his friend Ronald Reagan, takes surrealism as far as it can go, out-Dalis Dali and out-Picassos Picasso. The clock is melting and Henry Louis thinks that it will strike the hour of our deliverance four years hence.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Yoani Endorses Obama and Val Endorses McCain
When Val Prieto attacked Yoani Sánchez in The Wall Street Journal last year as possibly a Castro mole and perhaps worse, no one could have imagined except those of us familiar with his erratic behavior that six months later he would be defending her prerogative to support the same candidate that Fidel Castro has endorsed for U.S. president.
Obama, who has stated repeatedly his intention to negotiate with Raúl Castro without prior conditions, in effect capitulating to him before they have even met, since negotiations without prior conditions has always been the regime's official position, appears to enjoy widespread support among Cuba's dissident community. I explained in an earlier post that the Damas en Blanco support him because they feel that Castro will release their imprisoned relatives as cover for Obama's unilateral surrender, which will very likely be the case.
Yoani's own support for Obama is somewhat more arcane and certainly less explicable. She believes that his color and age would shield him from criticism by the regime. Again, she is probably right. Why would the regime criticize a fellow traveller who is prepared to give it everything it ever wanted with absolutely no strings attached? But isn't it more important how the regime treats blacks on the island than how it would treat a black in the White House? Isn't having a strong anti-communist in the Oval Office who will denounce and hopefully redress the abuses committed by the regime more desirable than having an apologist for the regime there who will perpetuate and increase those abuses by removing all disincentives for them?
Yoani is more daring, more eloquent but not better informed than other Cubans on the island. She has committed the error of judging both Obama and McCain by meaningless external qualities (youth, color) while ignoring their personal histories, political trajectories and closest associations. I do not blame her, however, but her expatriate asesores, who are now in charge of "moderating" Generación Y, that is, introducing censorship to one of the world's greatest cybernetic bulwarks against censorship. I'm sure that they gave her the same "good advice" about endorsing Obama as they did about instituting moderation. The regime is not the only enemy of Cuban dissidents; they are also preyed upon by exiles who use them to advance their own agenda.
Although we are disappointed by her political naivete, there are others who are not in her precarious situation, who, in fact, enjoy every advantage that she does not and yet have the gall to say that there is no difference between McCain and Obama, implying what Yoani at least has the courage to say outright however misguided she may be.
Babalú's Henry Gómez is one of those political dilettanti and obscurantists: "In terms of Cuba," Henry writes, "Barack Obama's position today is not monumentally different [emphasis mine] than McCain's or even the President's." "Not monumentally different," he writes. What the hell does that mean? "Different" establishes an antithetical distinction between "A" and "B." A difference is a difference whether "monumental" or not. Difference does not connote degree but essence. And, yes, there is a very essential difference between McCain's (or Bush's) position on Cuba and Obama's, which is not limited to remittances or family visits. Put in the simplest terms: Obama wishes to make common cause with Castro and McCain does not. If that is a distinction without a difference to Henry then he might as well vote for Obama in Yoani's name.
Babalú's internationalist, George Moneo, has a decidedly nationalist take on elections: He believes that voters should only consider the interests of the U.S. when casting their ballots, not those of any other country. In fact, those who even consider, let alone give preference to, the interests of another country than this one, he believes should be deported to that other country. "One can not serve two masters," warns George sternly. This sounds a lot like the rantings of those who attack Jewish-Americans for "divided loyalties" vis-a-vis Israel. Although, of course, George would never use that argument against them. It is only Cuban-Americans who must be faulted for taking into consideration the 50 years of tyranny imposed on the Cuban people by Fidel Castro (with a big assist from the U.S.) when deciding for whom they should vote. Since this is a free country (at least until Obama is elected president), any criteria whatever in choosing a president is licit. If it were otherwise, then this would not be a free country. Following George's dialectics, Communist Cuba would be the most democratic country on earth because the people exercise no criteria whatever when voting. There one doesn't have to "serve two masters." One master suffices (and so does one candidate for every office).
Of the three it is Val, surprisingly, who is the most reasonable in his assessment of McCain vs. Obama. Perhaps he received the inspiration while staring at Ronald Reagan's portrait in the White House. Or maybe he concluded that it would be a long time between White House visits if he didn't contribute his mite to get McCain elected. For whatever reason Val used his post announcing Yoani's support for Obama to give the nod himself to John McCain. Perhaps he thinks that one endorsement balances the other.
Val's was not the most graceful endorsement to be sure. Still, he promised to "hold his nose" and vote for the "old foagie" not on account of McCain's virtues but Obama's considerable demerits (which he lists). Well, at least Val does recognize a difference between them, unlike Henry. He also considers it acceptable to take into consideration the effect that one's vote could have on Cuba's prospects for freedom, differing to that extent with George; but, like George, he places America's interests first when voting and would vote against Cuba's interests if these were in conflict with America's. In this election, however, no such conflict exists. In fact, I can think of no election since 1959 when Cuba and America's interests have been more closely aligned. As Martí put it, "together they are saved or together they are damned."
POSTSCRIPT:
A visit from Henry in the "Comments."
Don't miss this debunking of Obama's "victory" which includes the best Obama quote yet:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzUyM2EzMjVmNDAxNzVjZTYyYzE5YzI1OWJjZTc0OGM=
Obama, who has stated repeatedly his intention to negotiate with Raúl Castro without prior conditions, in effect capitulating to him before they have even met, since negotiations without prior conditions has always been the regime's official position, appears to enjoy widespread support among Cuba's dissident community. I explained in an earlier post that the Damas en Blanco support him because they feel that Castro will release their imprisoned relatives as cover for Obama's unilateral surrender, which will very likely be the case.
Yoani's own support for Obama is somewhat more arcane and certainly less explicable. She believes that his color and age would shield him from criticism by the regime. Again, she is probably right. Why would the regime criticize a fellow traveller who is prepared to give it everything it ever wanted with absolutely no strings attached? But isn't it more important how the regime treats blacks on the island than how it would treat a black in the White House? Isn't having a strong anti-communist in the Oval Office who will denounce and hopefully redress the abuses committed by the regime more desirable than having an apologist for the regime there who will perpetuate and increase those abuses by removing all disincentives for them?
Yoani is more daring, more eloquent but not better informed than other Cubans on the island. She has committed the error of judging both Obama and McCain by meaningless external qualities (youth, color) while ignoring their personal histories, political trajectories and closest associations. I do not blame her, however, but her expatriate asesores, who are now in charge of "moderating" Generación Y, that is, introducing censorship to one of the world's greatest cybernetic bulwarks against censorship. I'm sure that they gave her the same "good advice" about endorsing Obama as they did about instituting moderation. The regime is not the only enemy of Cuban dissidents; they are also preyed upon by exiles who use them to advance their own agenda.
Although we are disappointed by her political naivete, there are others who are not in her precarious situation, who, in fact, enjoy every advantage that she does not and yet have the gall to say that there is no difference between McCain and Obama, implying what Yoani at least has the courage to say outright however misguided she may be.
Babalú's Henry Gómez is one of those political dilettanti and obscurantists: "In terms of Cuba," Henry writes, "Barack Obama's position today is not monumentally different [emphasis mine] than McCain's or even the President's." "Not monumentally different," he writes. What the hell does that mean? "Different" establishes an antithetical distinction between "A" and "B." A difference is a difference whether "monumental" or not. Difference does not connote degree but essence. And, yes, there is a very essential difference between McCain's (or Bush's) position on Cuba and Obama's, which is not limited to remittances or family visits. Put in the simplest terms: Obama wishes to make common cause with Castro and McCain does not. If that is a distinction without a difference to Henry then he might as well vote for Obama in Yoani's name.
Babalú's internationalist, George Moneo, has a decidedly nationalist take on elections: He believes that voters should only consider the interests of the U.S. when casting their ballots, not those of any other country. In fact, those who even consider, let alone give preference to, the interests of another country than this one, he believes should be deported to that other country. "One can not serve two masters," warns George sternly. This sounds a lot like the rantings of those who attack Jewish-Americans for "divided loyalties" vis-a-vis Israel. Although, of course, George would never use that argument against them. It is only Cuban-Americans who must be faulted for taking into consideration the 50 years of tyranny imposed on the Cuban people by Fidel Castro (with a big assist from the U.S.) when deciding for whom they should vote. Since this is a free country (at least until Obama is elected president), any criteria whatever in choosing a president is licit. If it were otherwise, then this would not be a free country. Following George's dialectics, Communist Cuba would be the most democratic country on earth because the people exercise no criteria whatever when voting. There one doesn't have to "serve two masters." One master suffices (and so does one candidate for every office).
Of the three it is Val, surprisingly, who is the most reasonable in his assessment of McCain vs. Obama. Perhaps he received the inspiration while staring at Ronald Reagan's portrait in the White House. Or maybe he concluded that it would be a long time between White House visits if he didn't contribute his mite to get McCain elected. For whatever reason Val used his post announcing Yoani's support for Obama to give the nod himself to John McCain. Perhaps he thinks that one endorsement balances the other.
Val's was not the most graceful endorsement to be sure. Still, he promised to "hold his nose" and vote for the "old foagie" not on account of McCain's virtues but Obama's considerable demerits (which he lists). Well, at least Val does recognize a difference between them, unlike Henry. He also considers it acceptable to take into consideration the effect that one's vote could have on Cuba's prospects for freedom, differing to that extent with George; but, like George, he places America's interests first when voting and would vote against Cuba's interests if these were in conflict with America's. In this election, however, no such conflict exists. In fact, I can think of no election since 1959 when Cuba and America's interests have been more closely aligned. As Martí put it, "together they are saved or together they are damned."
POSTSCRIPT:
A visit from Henry in the "Comments."
Don't miss this debunking of Obama's "victory" which includes the best Obama quote yet:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzUyM2EzMjVmNDAxNzVjZTYyYzE5YzI1OWJjZTc0OGM=
Barack Obama: The Son that Bill and Hillary Never Had
Barack Obama was abandoned by both his father and his mother. His exaggerated and wholly undeserved praise of them, the lessons which he claimed to have learned from a father whom he met only once in his life, at an airport, and the inspiration he supposedly derived from his radical mother, who was fighting the revolution in Southeast Asia throughout his childhood while he lived with his grandparents in Hawaii, is all a means to cope with that abandonment, which, of course, is something that nobody can ever wholly transcend.
The universal reaction to fill the void created by the absence of one's parents is to supply that void with an idealized conception of them. This Obama has done through his surrogate father Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his own wife Michelle, who is more a surrogate mother to him than anything else (Oprah Need Not Apply). However, if there are two people on this earth who could have created a Barack Obama besides his Harvard-educated Kenyan father and his hippie "Make Love [to Natives] Not War" mother, then, surely, they are Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bill, of course, was famously proclaimed by Maya Angelou (or was it Alice Walker?) as the first temperamentally African-American president. And Hillary is a more focused, calculating and successful version of Obama's mother.
I have never believed that Obama felt anything but the deepest emotional connection to the Clintons. As for Bill and Hillary they will become emotionally-invested in anyone who can further their interests. At this point, after having first frustrated their aspirations, Obama alone can make them relevant again. In effect, he can do for them what he did for his real parents -- rehabilitate their memory. The giddiness with which Obama received the suggestion that Bill Clinton would be willing to campaign for him, the alacrity with which he flew to Hillary's side when she beckoned him, shows that the role of dutiful son to less-than-perfect parents is a role that comes naturally to him, which, indeed, he can hardly suppress.
There can be no doubt that Hillary will be Obama's running-mate and the Clintons his surrogate parents for the next 4 years. They are not really deserving of his trust or his loyalty, but neither were his real parents. Hillary's gambit is that Obama, if elected, will not serve for long. Whether it is the skeletons in his closet that will be fleshed out by his election, or the maccabre prospect to which she has already previously alluded, Hillary believes that she has at least a 50% chance of finishing Obama's term and maybe winning one of her own.
The universal reaction to fill the void created by the absence of one's parents is to supply that void with an idealized conception of them. This Obama has done through his surrogate father Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his own wife Michelle, who is more a surrogate mother to him than anything else (Oprah Need Not Apply). However, if there are two people on this earth who could have created a Barack Obama besides his Harvard-educated Kenyan father and his hippie "Make Love [to Natives] Not War" mother, then, surely, they are Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bill, of course, was famously proclaimed by Maya Angelou (or was it Alice Walker?) as the first temperamentally African-American president. And Hillary is a more focused, calculating and successful version of Obama's mother.
I have never believed that Obama felt anything but the deepest emotional connection to the Clintons. As for Bill and Hillary they will become emotionally-invested in anyone who can further their interests. At this point, after having first frustrated their aspirations, Obama alone can make them relevant again. In effect, he can do for them what he did for his real parents -- rehabilitate their memory. The giddiness with which Obama received the suggestion that Bill Clinton would be willing to campaign for him, the alacrity with which he flew to Hillary's side when she beckoned him, shows that the role of dutiful son to less-than-perfect parents is a role that comes naturally to him, which, indeed, he can hardly suppress.
There can be no doubt that Hillary will be Obama's running-mate and the Clintons his surrogate parents for the next 4 years. They are not really deserving of his trust or his loyalty, but neither were his real parents. Hillary's gambit is that Obama, if elected, will not serve for long. Whether it is the skeletons in his closet that will be fleshed out by his election, or the maccabre prospect to which she has already previously alluded, Hillary believes that she has at least a 50% chance of finishing Obama's term and maybe winning one of her own.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Advice for McCain As He Embarks on His Crusade to Save America from Its Domestic Enemies
Don't be afraid to attack Obama aggressively and relentlessly. Expose his Marxist connections and the fact that he has built his political career on embracing America's enemies and advancing their interests. Your constituency won't object even if the media crucify you for it and all the lapdogs of liberalism are unleashed against you. Jim McGreevy, who was shielded by the media for years from the effects of his indiscretions, is nobody's hero now and neither will Obama's reputation survive the exposure of his sordid past (present?). Don't feel restrained because Obama is an African-American. His race, or, rather, the side of his ancestry with which he choses to identify himself, should be no concern of yours. No presidential candidate in history will win fewer African-American votes than you though no Republican has been a more consistent supporter of equality and opportunity for all Americans. Whites who don't vote for Obama, especially if they are Democrats -- and there will be a lot of those -- will be condemned as racists. The fact that almost no black will vote for you shall not be seen as a reflection on them but on you. Again, don't try to accommodate the race mongers or race baiters. There is nothing that you can do to convince them that your experience trumps Obama's experience, or to disabuse them of the notion that words that say nothing are more redolent of hope than are solid achievements.
Isolate President Bush like a virus. Your own native sense of loyalty prevents you from breaking ranks with him, and, of course, you would never blame him for the failure in Iraq when success there seems at last within reach. Still, you must keep him, or, rather, yourself as far away from Bush as you can, physically and with your vision "thing." Yes, I know, Gore lost the election because he did the same thing with Clinton. But there is a difference. Clinton was more popular than Gore even at his most unpopular and his fellow Democrats remained in his corner to the last. Clinton was an untapped asset for Gore. Bush is no asset for you. Certainly, the media has contributed the most to making him a pariah, but there is nothing that you can do to rehabilitate him now. He must do that for himself as Truman did, and Nixon did and Carter did. Worry instead about what the media will do to you. Their blatant unfairness to Hillary Clinton during the primaries will be nothing compared to what they have planned for you in the general election. The left is not through torturing you. Their water boy will remain respectful because he can. But every superannuated 60s liberal will make it his business to see to it that the Vietnam War is lost again in 2008. These unreconstructed radicals are in control of the media and academia and have educated and trained their successors to hate all the people that they hate. You are pretty much at the top of the list.
Do not squander your political capital, or narrow your base of support, by courting the Know-Nothings and other fifth-columnists within the Republican Party's big tent. They may bluster and fultimate, but, in the end, the prospect of an Obama presidency will reconcile them to you without you having to make any overture to them. If they do not support you, then we are not talking about Republicans but anarchists vent on destroying not only the party but the nation. Their support you do not need and should not want.
Do not choose as a running-mate any of the tribe of weasals who ran against you in the Republican primaries. Mediocre would be a generous assessment of them as a group, though as individuals some don't even reach that threshhold. Pitiful indeed they must have been to have positioned themselves to the right of you and yet failed to win the support of conservative Republicans. It would be difficult if not impossible to decide which is less unctuous or less insincere. Choose, instead, a running-mate who matches your strengths not one who supposedly compensates for your weaknesses. Do not fall into the trap of picking someone as young and inexperienced as Barack Obama. That kind of "balance" the ticket doesn't need as it would dilute your ability to challenge Obama's monumental gall in presuming that he is qualified to be president of the United States and leader of the free world on the basis of three lackluster years in the Senate where he was playing hookey most of the time and an equally undistinguished career in the Illinois legislature.
Seriously consider an Hispanic as a running-mate. Obama isn't liked by Hispanics and any half-credible Hispanic vice presidential candidate could split the Hispanic vote. No Cuban-Americans, please. You are already guaranteed the Cuban vote, anyway, and other Hispanics wouldn't vote for a Cuban in any case because they dislike us more than they dislike Obama. And, yes, forget about the governor of Florida, too. Again, you don't need Governor Crist because Cuban-American support (and the support of all of crackerdom) will guarantee your victory in Florida. Besides, selecting Crist would be like balm applied to Obama's Achilles foot and I've already warned you against attempting to clone Obama in a running-mate.
Isolate President Bush like a virus. Your own native sense of loyalty prevents you from breaking ranks with him, and, of course, you would never blame him for the failure in Iraq when success there seems at last within reach. Still, you must keep him, or, rather, yourself as far away from Bush as you can, physically and with your vision "thing." Yes, I know, Gore lost the election because he did the same thing with Clinton. But there is a difference. Clinton was more popular than Gore even at his most unpopular and his fellow Democrats remained in his corner to the last. Clinton was an untapped asset for Gore. Bush is no asset for you. Certainly, the media has contributed the most to making him a pariah, but there is nothing that you can do to rehabilitate him now. He must do that for himself as Truman did, and Nixon did and Carter did. Worry instead about what the media will do to you. Their blatant unfairness to Hillary Clinton during the primaries will be nothing compared to what they have planned for you in the general election. The left is not through torturing you. Their water boy will remain respectful because he can. But every superannuated 60s liberal will make it his business to see to it that the Vietnam War is lost again in 2008. These unreconstructed radicals are in control of the media and academia and have educated and trained their successors to hate all the people that they hate. You are pretty much at the top of the list.
Do not squander your political capital, or narrow your base of support, by courting the Know-Nothings and other fifth-columnists within the Republican Party's big tent. They may bluster and fultimate, but, in the end, the prospect of an Obama presidency will reconcile them to you without you having to make any overture to them. If they do not support you, then we are not talking about Republicans but anarchists vent on destroying not only the party but the nation. Their support you do not need and should not want.
Do not choose as a running-mate any of the tribe of weasals who ran against you in the Republican primaries. Mediocre would be a generous assessment of them as a group, though as individuals some don't even reach that threshhold. Pitiful indeed they must have been to have positioned themselves to the right of you and yet failed to win the support of conservative Republicans. It would be difficult if not impossible to decide which is less unctuous or less insincere. Choose, instead, a running-mate who matches your strengths not one who supposedly compensates for your weaknesses. Do not fall into the trap of picking someone as young and inexperienced as Barack Obama. That kind of "balance" the ticket doesn't need as it would dilute your ability to challenge Obama's monumental gall in presuming that he is qualified to be president of the United States and leader of the free world on the basis of three lackluster years in the Senate where he was playing hookey most of the time and an equally undistinguished career in the Illinois legislature.
Seriously consider an Hispanic as a running-mate. Obama isn't liked by Hispanics and any half-credible Hispanic vice presidential candidate could split the Hispanic vote. No Cuban-Americans, please. You are already guaranteed the Cuban vote, anyway, and other Hispanics wouldn't vote for a Cuban in any case because they dislike us more than they dislike Obama. And, yes, forget about the governor of Florida, too. Again, you don't need Governor Crist because Cuban-American support (and the support of all of crackerdom) will guarantee your victory in Florida. Besides, selecting Crist would be like balm applied to Obama's Achilles foot and I've already warned you against attempting to clone Obama in a running-mate.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
American History 901: How to Steal an Election
This is American History 901.
You are not taught this stuff in school. You'll only find it if you've dedicated your life to exploring the Black Hole that is the political history of this country. If you've done that then you know already that Obama's coronation, achieved by stealing half plus four of Hillary's delegates in Florida and Michigan, is no historical anomaly. But neither is it the most egregious instance of electoral fraud in U.S. history. That would be the election of 1960.
A lot of people know, or think they know, that Kennedy defeated Nixon thanks to the cemetery vote in Chicago. Yeah, that helped. But before Mayor Daley's ghostly legions could carry JFK to victory, it was first necessary to get him even with Nixon. All the ballot stuffing in Chicago would have been unavailing if Kennedy had not been able to steal the electoral votes of the Deep South.
The Democrats knew that there was no way that John F. Kennedy could carry the Deep South in 1960 even with Lyndon Johnson as his running-mate. They also knew that Kennedy could not win unless he did. It was decided, therefore, that JFK would not be on the presidential ballot in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. Instead, the state Democratic committees "seceded" from the National Party by prior connivance and with its blessing, and nominated former Klansmen Senators Harry Byrd and Richard Russell as the Democratic standard-bearers in those states. The Democrats were thus about to carry Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. The electors for Senator Byrd chosen in those states cast their votes instead for Kennedy at the Electoral College. That's how Kennedy was elected president (with a little assist from Mayor Daley).
No breach of democracy ever committed anywhere in the world at any time in history can match in creativity or sheer gall the monumental fraud that was the U.S. election of 1960.
For Cubans in particular that election would have catastrophic consequences which are still being felt today.
The electoral sleight of hand used to secure the Democratic nomination for Obama, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton received a plurality of the popular vote and delegates, does not bode well for the future of Cuba, either.
Although I do not believe that a Socialist can be elected president of the United States, it is not by any means reassuring to have one as the anointed candidate of the Democratic Party.
You are not taught this stuff in school. You'll only find it if you've dedicated your life to exploring the Black Hole that is the political history of this country. If you've done that then you know already that Obama's coronation, achieved by stealing half plus four of Hillary's delegates in Florida and Michigan, is no historical anomaly. But neither is it the most egregious instance of electoral fraud in U.S. history. That would be the election of 1960.
A lot of people know, or think they know, that Kennedy defeated Nixon thanks to the cemetery vote in Chicago. Yeah, that helped. But before Mayor Daley's ghostly legions could carry JFK to victory, it was first necessary to get him even with Nixon. All the ballot stuffing in Chicago would have been unavailing if Kennedy had not been able to steal the electoral votes of the Deep South.
The Democrats knew that there was no way that John F. Kennedy could carry the Deep South in 1960 even with Lyndon Johnson as his running-mate. They also knew that Kennedy could not win unless he did. It was decided, therefore, that JFK would not be on the presidential ballot in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. Instead, the state Democratic committees "seceded" from the National Party by prior connivance and with its blessing, and nominated former Klansmen Senators Harry Byrd and Richard Russell as the Democratic standard-bearers in those states. The Democrats were thus about to carry Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. The electors for Senator Byrd chosen in those states cast their votes instead for Kennedy at the Electoral College. That's how Kennedy was elected president (with a little assist from Mayor Daley).
No breach of democracy ever committed anywhere in the world at any time in history can match in creativity or sheer gall the monumental fraud that was the U.S. election of 1960.
For Cubans in particular that election would have catastrophic consequences which are still being felt today.
The electoral sleight of hand used to secure the Democratic nomination for Obama, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton received a plurality of the popular vote and delegates, does not bode well for the future of Cuba, either.
Although I do not believe that a Socialist can be elected president of the United States, it is not by any means reassuring to have one as the anointed candidate of the Democratic Party.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Notable & Unforeseen: Henry Gets It
"I don't see how any Cuban-American could in good conscience vote for Obama with the legions of commie supporters he has. -- Henry Louis Gómez, "Obama and Che," Babalú, June 2, 2008
You don't say, Henry?
But you won't vote against Obama regardless of how may commie supporters he has, including Fidel Castro.
Henry has already said that he wants Obama to defeat McCain so that the counterreaction to Obama will propel a "real" conservative into the White House four years hence.
He is, of course, assuming that there will be a "four years hence."
You don't say, Henry?
But you won't vote against Obama regardless of how may commie supporters he has, including Fidel Castro.
Henry has already said that he wants Obama to defeat McCain so that the counterreaction to Obama will propel a "real" conservative into the White House four years hence.
He is, of course, assuming that there will be a "four years hence."
Sunday, June 1, 2008
On the Fine Art of Judging Cubans
A rare opportunity has presented itself to compare a pro-Cuban and an anti-Cuban blog because today both Killcasstro and Babalú have commented on the same Miami Herald article ("Many Cubans Don't Work, At Least Not Officially," May 30). The article, in a nutshell, implies that Cubans are "lazy" because they won't work for the $7-$15 per month that Castro offers his slaves, preferring, instead, to join the world's longest-running spontaneous general strike. They do work, of course, in spite of the state, and, often, at the expense of the state in what The Herald describes as "quasi-legal, unofficial activities." They are the resistance in Cuba, numbering millions, doing everything in their power to sabotage the regime economically, which is also to hurt it politically. The Castro regime understands their "dangerousness" and punishes those who refuse to work for the state with 8 years at hard labor.
Henry Gómez, who is more dense than the Castro regime or the anonymous Miami Herald reporter who wrote the story, does not understand that what these "strikers" are doing is subversive in the extreme. He prefers, instead, to parrot the official line that they are lazy and selfish. He also regards them as proof of the harm which remittances and other forms of aid supposedly wreak on Cubans. Since working for Castro necessarily means starving, it is not surprising that Babalú should wish that all Cubans consented to serve him. Starvation, of course, is the general panacea (or should that be "sine panacea?) that will spur Cubans to face down tanks with their bony fingers. Or so Henry hopes. "No Cubans, no problem" is Babalú's motto. They have moved from demanding freedom for Cubans to demanding a Cuban-free Cuba.
If Henry had been born and raised in Cuba, I wonder what he would be doing right now? Winning certificates of merit as the exemplary revolutionary prole, breaking his back for Fidel for $2 a day and, of course, all those certificates? Or would be choose to become an unlicensed entrepreneur, or what we know here as a street hustler? Or would Henry sit at home making jingles for his own amusement while waiting for his $100 monthly allowance from his aunt in the Yuma? Well, he would have to do one of the above or a combination thereof to survive. My guess is that the "niño bitongo," as Val describes him, wouldn't have the savvy to be a street hustler. Henry would either become a "Hero of Socialist Labor" or a collector of remittances. Perhaps both.
In contrast, Charlie Bravo's take on The Herald article is informed by two advantages which he has over Henry (among others): he was born and raised in Cuba and knows what it takes to survive there. For him, in particular, it meant digging ditches for one year because he was considered an "anti-social" element for wanting to flee Castro's "Socialist Paradise." His empathy for the uncommon man in Cuba, his respect for his exertions to put food in his family's mouths, which is a daily struggle without respite that requires more ingenuity than becoming a millionaire in this country, everything that Charlie knows, in short, which Henry doesn't know and never will know, makes Charlie a better judge of the Cuban people.
I urge you to read his brilliant deconstruction of The Miami Herald's latest canard against Cubans, which is also a rebuke to all the Henrys of the world who look down on our countrymen on the island, when, except for the accident of birth, they might have shared their fate and borne their burden:
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/2008/06/amarillismo.html
POSTSCRIPT:
Don't miss Killcastro's comments on "resolviendo" on the same thread.
Henry Gómez, who is more dense than the Castro regime or the anonymous Miami Herald reporter who wrote the story, does not understand that what these "strikers" are doing is subversive in the extreme. He prefers, instead, to parrot the official line that they are lazy and selfish. He also regards them as proof of the harm which remittances and other forms of aid supposedly wreak on Cubans. Since working for Castro necessarily means starving, it is not surprising that Babalú should wish that all Cubans consented to serve him. Starvation, of course, is the general panacea (or should that be "sine panacea?) that will spur Cubans to face down tanks with their bony fingers. Or so Henry hopes. "No Cubans, no problem" is Babalú's motto. They have moved from demanding freedom for Cubans to demanding a Cuban-free Cuba.
If Henry had been born and raised in Cuba, I wonder what he would be doing right now? Winning certificates of merit as the exemplary revolutionary prole, breaking his back for Fidel for $2 a day and, of course, all those certificates? Or would be choose to become an unlicensed entrepreneur, or what we know here as a street hustler? Or would Henry sit at home making jingles for his own amusement while waiting for his $100 monthly allowance from his aunt in the Yuma? Well, he would have to do one of the above or a combination thereof to survive. My guess is that the "niño bitongo," as Val describes him, wouldn't have the savvy to be a street hustler. Henry would either become a "Hero of Socialist Labor" or a collector of remittances. Perhaps both.
In contrast, Charlie Bravo's take on The Herald article is informed by two advantages which he has over Henry (among others): he was born and raised in Cuba and knows what it takes to survive there. For him, in particular, it meant digging ditches for one year because he was considered an "anti-social" element for wanting to flee Castro's "Socialist Paradise." His empathy for the uncommon man in Cuba, his respect for his exertions to put food in his family's mouths, which is a daily struggle without respite that requires more ingenuity than becoming a millionaire in this country, everything that Charlie knows, in short, which Henry doesn't know and never will know, makes Charlie a better judge of the Cuban people.
I urge you to read his brilliant deconstruction of The Miami Herald's latest canard against Cubans, which is also a rebuke to all the Henrys of the world who look down on our countrymen on the island, when, except for the accident of birth, they might have shared their fate and borne their burden:
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/2008/06/amarillismo.html
POSTSCRIPT:
Don't miss Killcastro's comments on "resolviendo" on the same thread.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Obama Quits Church
Realizing at long last that the 4-ring circus at Chicago's Trinity Unity Church of Christ wasn't going to close between now and November, Barack Obama had no choice but to sever his connection to the church that Rev. Jeremiah Wright built. It was not an easy decision for him to make as reflected in the months of soul-searching before finally figuring out what everybody else had long ago concluded -- there was no way that Trinity United would ever metamorphose into a mainstream church acceptable to more than ten percent of Americans. On the contrary, its bizarreries only increased with time and now it was even importing crackpots from other denominations to grace its tabernacle.
Still, this church was his "spiritual home" and its pastor emeritus had been the mentor who forged his social conscience and inducted him into Christianity: we might add, a proto-Marxist social conscience and a Christianity informed by liberation theology, the Marxist variant of Christianity.
There was little stability in Barack Obama's early life. Shuttled from Hawaii to Indonesia, from mother to grandparents, from a Muslim madrassa to a Catholic school, uncertain of who he was, with a father who abandoned him at birth and no black role model or any black friends, Barack Obama craved a sense of belonging, tradition, stability and continuity in his adult life. Hence he attended the same church for 20 years; hence he has been attended by the same physician for 20 years. It must have been traumatic indeed for him to resign from Trinity United, the bedrock of his newly-forged identity, where he became everything he is today, alas.
Obama experienced the same difficulty disassociating himself from his church as he had earlier distancing himself from his longtime minister. At first, he said that he would no more disown Rev. Wright than the grandmother who raised him. And now he is making it clear that despite his resignation: "I'm not denouncing the church, and I am not interested in people who want me to denounce the church. It's not a church worth denouncing." He means, of course, that it's not deserving of denunciation. No doubt, like Rev. Wright, the church or its new minister will do something in the next 6 months that will obliged Obama to denounce it regardless of his having already publicly severed his connection to it or vowed never to denounce it.
It is worth noting that his letter of resignation was written by his wife and is signed first by her. Make of that what you will. She is certainly the more dominant personality, the strong-willed and well-connected spouse that Rev. Wright introduced to Obama (or, some say, chose for him). She is the more radical of the two as Hillary was once more radical than Bill, and, like Hillary in 1992, she has her eye on the main chance and is as influential in her spouse's campaign.
Obama can resign from Trinity United but he is still what that church made him. And, ultimately, of course, he can't resign from himself.
Still, this church was his "spiritual home" and its pastor emeritus had been the mentor who forged his social conscience and inducted him into Christianity: we might add, a proto-Marxist social conscience and a Christianity informed by liberation theology, the Marxist variant of Christianity.
There was little stability in Barack Obama's early life. Shuttled from Hawaii to Indonesia, from mother to grandparents, from a Muslim madrassa to a Catholic school, uncertain of who he was, with a father who abandoned him at birth and no black role model or any black friends, Barack Obama craved a sense of belonging, tradition, stability and continuity in his adult life. Hence he attended the same church for 20 years; hence he has been attended by the same physician for 20 years. It must have been traumatic indeed for him to resign from Trinity United, the bedrock of his newly-forged identity, where he became everything he is today, alas.
Obama experienced the same difficulty disassociating himself from his church as he had earlier distancing himself from his longtime minister. At first, he said that he would no more disown Rev. Wright than the grandmother who raised him. And now he is making it clear that despite his resignation: "I'm not denouncing the church, and I am not interested in people who want me to denounce the church. It's not a church worth denouncing." He means, of course, that it's not deserving of denunciation. No doubt, like Rev. Wright, the church or its new minister will do something in the next 6 months that will obliged Obama to denounce it regardless of his having already publicly severed his connection to it or vowed never to denounce it.
It is worth noting that his letter of resignation was written by his wife and is signed first by her. Make of that what you will. She is certainly the more dominant personality, the strong-willed and well-connected spouse that Rev. Wright introduced to Obama (or, some say, chose for him). She is the more radical of the two as Hillary was once more radical than Bill, and, like Hillary in 1992, she has her eye on the main chance and is as influential in her spouse's campaign.
Obama can resign from Trinity United but he is still what that church made him. And, ultimately, of course, he can't resign from himself.
Obama's "Message to Fidel"
Although Fidel Castro was not mentioned by name in Barack Obama's speech to the Cuban American National Foundation, there was a "Secret Message" for him in it which he would not have failed to grasp, and which his "Reflection" upon Obama's speech shows that he not only understood but used as the basis for his endorsement of Obama.
In his speech, Obama alluded to FDR's "Four Freedoms" as enunciated in his June 6, 1941 address to Congress. These are: 1) freedom of speech and expression; 2) freedom of religion; 3) freedom from want; 4) freedom from fear. Obama said that "What all of us should strive for is freedom as FDR described it." We prefer, of course, Martí's more succinct definition: "Freedom is the right of every man to think and speak without hypocrisy." From that freedom follows all others and without it there can be no other. But it suited Obama's purposes to define freedom in Roosevelt's terms because his "Four Freedoms" include "freedom from want," the old Marxist shibboleth to which every other freedom is sacrificed in a Communist society without ever obtaining a reprieve from hunger, starvation or famine, but, rather, adding manmade causes for these to the natural ones.
Obama cites Cuba as one of the nations in the Americas that suffers from want of political freedom. He does not, however, cite it as one that is deficient in "advancing freedom from want," a curious omission in a speech to a Cuban-American lobby that supports remittances and other kinds of assistance in order to mitigate the effects of Castro's impoverishment of the Cuban people. Yet it is not so curious if one considers that Obama's thought on Cuba and everything else is shaped by two polarities -- FDR and JFK.
Not only does Obama resurrect FDR's "Four Freedoms" but proclaims that "It's time for a new alliance of the Americas (that is, Alliance for Progress). FDR was a great believer in the utility of friendly dictatorships in Latin America (remember, "Somoza is a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch?"). Kennedy, of course, actually believed that Castro's anti-Cuban revolution was a classic social revolution, one fought, supposedly, to advance the cause of "freedom from want." On more than one occasion JFK expressed a deep remorse for having to oppose a revolution which was "doing so much good for the Cuban people." His support for the so-called "social agenda" of the Cuban Revolution is contained in the notorious "White Paper" on Cuba, written under Kennedy's instructions by toady-in-chief Arthur M. Schlesinger, which actually sanctions Cuba-like "social revolutions" throughout Latin America.
From JFK, Obama learned a certain partiality to Third-World social revolutions and from FDR the utility of cultivating friendly dictators. Apparently, Obama thinks that he can turn Castro into one of those by the force of his personality and with America's checkbook. Nothing would please Castro more than to be "friendly" to the U.S. on his terms. He has never wanted anything else. Of course, friendship on his terms means unconditional capitulation by the United States, which is the promise and prize that Obama holds out to him.
Obama conveyed his solidarity and assured Fidel of his future support by declaring that "[a]fter decades of pressing for top-down reforms [that is, the last 40 odd years since Kennedy], we need an agenda that advances democracy, security and opportunity from the bottom up." Or, in other words, we need popular revolutions in Latin America. Not in Cuba, of course, because the people there have already achieved that most important [Marxist] condition for a fully integrated society -- freedom from want, or so Obama believes.
That was the "Message to Fidel" that Obama transmitted in secret code in his speech: the recognition that it had achieved, at least, one of FDR's "Four Freedoms," the one, in particular, which matters the most to Castro and which he is most proud to claim as an "achievement." Of course, anyone who has ever gone beyond the propaganda (as clearly Obama has not) is aware that Castro transformed a once prosperous First-World country into a perennially struggling Third-World one. Still, for Obama, poverty is something that exists in Haiti and Peru, not Cuba.
In his "Reflection" on Obama's speech, Fidel Castro made it quite clear that he understood perfectly Obama's code and returned the compliment proffered by Obama:
"What did he say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from a social and human viewpoint, the most progressive candidate for the presidency of the United States? 'For two hundred years,' he said, 'the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle --not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and despair. That is not a future that we have to accept --not for the child in Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We must do better. […] We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach.' A magnificent description of imperialist globalization: the globalization of empty stomachs! We ought to thank him for it."
Yes, Fidel is feeling very grateful to Obama. That "globalization of empty stomachs" is worthy of Noah Chomsky himself, or Fidel Castro. Fidel goes on to compare the Monroe Doctrine to the "Obama Doctrine," and pronounces himself firmly on the side of the latter with its promise of "deepen[ing] the trust and the ties among our people."
Fidel especially liked a line toward the end of Obama's speech where he proclaims "[t]ogether, we can choose the future over the past." Fidel called it "a beautiful phrase, for it attests to the idea, or at least the apprehension, that history shapes great men and not all the other way around." Fidel seems to be discovering Marxist tropes everywhere in Obama's speech. He may be better at that than even me. But I prefer a different interpretation of Obama's "beautiful phrase."
"To choose the future over the past" is to ignore the lessons of the past in favor of the blind hopes of the future. There is nothing that Fidel would like more than for the U.S. to forget the last 49 years and resurrect all the hopes and illusions which it once had about his Revolution. If Obama is elected president, Fidel's hope may became our nightmare.
[Part II and conclusion of:]
Fidel Castro Endorses Barack Obama
In his speech, Obama alluded to FDR's "Four Freedoms" as enunciated in his June 6, 1941 address to Congress. These are: 1) freedom of speech and expression; 2) freedom of religion; 3) freedom from want; 4) freedom from fear. Obama said that "What all of us should strive for is freedom as FDR described it." We prefer, of course, Martí's more succinct definition: "Freedom is the right of every man to think and speak without hypocrisy." From that freedom follows all others and without it there can be no other. But it suited Obama's purposes to define freedom in Roosevelt's terms because his "Four Freedoms" include "freedom from want," the old Marxist shibboleth to which every other freedom is sacrificed in a Communist society without ever obtaining a reprieve from hunger, starvation or famine, but, rather, adding manmade causes for these to the natural ones.
Obama cites Cuba as one of the nations in the Americas that suffers from want of political freedom. He does not, however, cite it as one that is deficient in "advancing freedom from want," a curious omission in a speech to a Cuban-American lobby that supports remittances and other kinds of assistance in order to mitigate the effects of Castro's impoverishment of the Cuban people. Yet it is not so curious if one considers that Obama's thought on Cuba and everything else is shaped by two polarities -- FDR and JFK.
Not only does Obama resurrect FDR's "Four Freedoms" but proclaims that "It's time for a new alliance of the Americas (that is, Alliance for Progress). FDR was a great believer in the utility of friendly dictatorships in Latin America (remember, "Somoza is a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch?"). Kennedy, of course, actually believed that Castro's anti-Cuban revolution was a classic social revolution, one fought, supposedly, to advance the cause of "freedom from want." On more than one occasion JFK expressed a deep remorse for having to oppose a revolution which was "doing so much good for the Cuban people." His support for the so-called "social agenda" of the Cuban Revolution is contained in the notorious "White Paper" on Cuba, written under Kennedy's instructions by toady-in-chief Arthur M. Schlesinger, which actually sanctions Cuba-like "social revolutions" throughout Latin America.
From JFK, Obama learned a certain partiality to Third-World social revolutions and from FDR the utility of cultivating friendly dictators. Apparently, Obama thinks that he can turn Castro into one of those by the force of his personality and with America's checkbook. Nothing would please Castro more than to be "friendly" to the U.S. on his terms. He has never wanted anything else. Of course, friendship on his terms means unconditional capitulation by the United States, which is the promise and prize that Obama holds out to him.
Obama conveyed his solidarity and assured Fidel of his future support by declaring that "[a]fter decades of pressing for top-down reforms [that is, the last 40 odd years since Kennedy], we need an agenda that advances democracy, security and opportunity from the bottom up." Or, in other words, we need popular revolutions in Latin America. Not in Cuba, of course, because the people there have already achieved that most important [Marxist] condition for a fully integrated society -- freedom from want, or so Obama believes.
That was the "Message to Fidel" that Obama transmitted in secret code in his speech: the recognition that it had achieved, at least, one of FDR's "Four Freedoms," the one, in particular, which matters the most to Castro and which he is most proud to claim as an "achievement." Of course, anyone who has ever gone beyond the propaganda (as clearly Obama has not) is aware that Castro transformed a once prosperous First-World country into a perennially struggling Third-World one. Still, for Obama, poverty is something that exists in Haiti and Peru, not Cuba.
In his "Reflection" on Obama's speech, Fidel Castro made it quite clear that he understood perfectly Obama's code and returned the compliment proffered by Obama:
"What did he say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from a social and human viewpoint, the most progressive candidate for the presidency of the United States? 'For two hundred years,' he said, 'the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle --not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and despair. That is not a future that we have to accept --not for the child in Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We must do better. […] We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach.' A magnificent description of imperialist globalization: the globalization of empty stomachs! We ought to thank him for it."
Yes, Fidel is feeling very grateful to Obama. That "globalization of empty stomachs" is worthy of Noah Chomsky himself, or Fidel Castro. Fidel goes on to compare the Monroe Doctrine to the "Obama Doctrine," and pronounces himself firmly on the side of the latter with its promise of "deepen[ing] the trust and the ties among our people."
Fidel especially liked a line toward the end of Obama's speech where he proclaims "[t]ogether, we can choose the future over the past." Fidel called it "a beautiful phrase, for it attests to the idea, or at least the apprehension, that history shapes great men and not all the other way around." Fidel seems to be discovering Marxist tropes everywhere in Obama's speech. He may be better at that than even me. But I prefer a different interpretation of Obama's "beautiful phrase."
"To choose the future over the past" is to ignore the lessons of the past in favor of the blind hopes of the future. There is nothing that Fidel would like more than for the U.S. to forget the last 49 years and resurrect all the hopes and illusions which it once had about his Revolution. If Obama is elected president, Fidel's hope may became our nightmare.
[Part II and conclusion of:]
Fidel Castro Endorses Barack Obama
The Damas de Blanco Reach Down to Obama
Marc Másferrer put it very succinctly recently in Uncommon Sense: "Damas: 'We Like Obama.'" I think a better take on their endorsement of Obama's plan to meet with Rául Castro would be: "Damas: 'We Should Like to See Again Our Imprisoned Husbands, Sons and Brothers.'"
The Damas de Blanco are not naive as some have suggested in attempting to explain their by no means new embrace of detente. In fact, the Dama de Blanco are more politically savvy than their self-appointed apologists. They have realized that their loved ones in Castro's prisons are hostages and that none will see the light of day again until such a meeting takes place.
The 230 political prisoners officially recognized as such by the major human rights organizations, although they constitute exactly .001 percent of those incarcerated by Castro, are, by virtue of their celebrity and the exertions of the Damas themselves in calling attention to their plight, the reserved stock of Castro's jails. They are not going to be given away to just anybody. The days are long past when any official visitor to the island could bring his wish list and get his pick.
In fact, Raúl has called a moratorium on such reckless expenditure of Communist Cuba's most important bargaining chips. All 230 are reserved for Obama himself as surely as if they had been branded with his name. They are his reward for meeting with Raúl and his political cover: the MSM will see to it that Obama is hailed as their "liberator" and not as the president who capitulated to Castro unconditionally.
It is likely that if Obama is elected, or even in anticipation of his election, the 230 may be accorded better treatment. Slaves also, when their masters had decided to sell them down the river, were put on double rations and their various infirmities attended to so that they would make the best possible appearance on the auction block.
Of course, the Damas de Blanco would welcome any improvement in their living conditions and rejoice at the prospect of their release. One would have to be bereft of any sense of empathy or divorced from humanity itself to criticize them for petitioning Obama on behalf of their family members.
What we do find unconscionable is the fact that Obama put them in this position in the first place. An off-the cuff remark by him, which he could later have modified but chose instead to codify as the "Obama Doctrine," held out the promise to Raúl and all the world's tyrants that the U.S. would accommodate them and expect nothing in return but the pleasure of their company. Hopeful and emboldened by Obama's pledge, now reiterated on numerous occasions, they have frozen everything in place in expectation of that golden hour. This includes, of course, the fate of political prisoners.
What Obama holds out to them, and what they are all too eager to receive from him, is a totalitarian "New Deal." All the wrongs of the past, the crimes and the usurpations committed on their people, will be forgiven by one who has no right to presume to do so. No restitution will be required of them in exchange for this plenary indulgence nor any pledge extracted to alter their customary behavior. They can continue to be exactly what they are and what they have always been -- the scourge of their countrymen. The only difference will be that the U.S. shall not challenge their right to be tyrants.
The "Obama Doctrine" is far from progressive; it is, in fact, the very definition of reactionary, a throwback to the divine right of kings. Had he never enunciated it, he would never have received the support of the Damas de Blanco because their hopes for the freedom of Cuba's political prisoners would still be centered around freedom for all Cubans. Now they are convinced that if Obama is elected president in November the prospect of all Cubans regaining their freedom will be reduced to almost nothing, while, ironically, the prospect that 230 Cubans, among the least free of Castro's subjects, will regain theirs is almost guaranteed. Under such circumstances the Damas de Blanco are entirely right to get what is within their reach especially since it is what they most want.
The Damas de Blanco are not naive as some have suggested in attempting to explain their by no means new embrace of detente. In fact, the Dama de Blanco are more politically savvy than their self-appointed apologists. They have realized that their loved ones in Castro's prisons are hostages and that none will see the light of day again until such a meeting takes place.
The 230 political prisoners officially recognized as such by the major human rights organizations, although they constitute exactly .001 percent of those incarcerated by Castro, are, by virtue of their celebrity and the exertions of the Damas themselves in calling attention to their plight, the reserved stock of Castro's jails. They are not going to be given away to just anybody. The days are long past when any official visitor to the island could bring his wish list and get his pick.
In fact, Raúl has called a moratorium on such reckless expenditure of Communist Cuba's most important bargaining chips. All 230 are reserved for Obama himself as surely as if they had been branded with his name. They are his reward for meeting with Raúl and his political cover: the MSM will see to it that Obama is hailed as their "liberator" and not as the president who capitulated to Castro unconditionally.
It is likely that if Obama is elected, or even in anticipation of his election, the 230 may be accorded better treatment. Slaves also, when their masters had decided to sell them down the river, were put on double rations and their various infirmities attended to so that they would make the best possible appearance on the auction block.
Of course, the Damas de Blanco would welcome any improvement in their living conditions and rejoice at the prospect of their release. One would have to be bereft of any sense of empathy or divorced from humanity itself to criticize them for petitioning Obama on behalf of their family members.
What we do find unconscionable is the fact that Obama put them in this position in the first place. An off-the cuff remark by him, which he could later have modified but chose instead to codify as the "Obama Doctrine," held out the promise to Raúl and all the world's tyrants that the U.S. would accommodate them and expect nothing in return but the pleasure of their company. Hopeful and emboldened by Obama's pledge, now reiterated on numerous occasions, they have frozen everything in place in expectation of that golden hour. This includes, of course, the fate of political prisoners.
What Obama holds out to them, and what they are all too eager to receive from him, is a totalitarian "New Deal." All the wrongs of the past, the crimes and the usurpations committed on their people, will be forgiven by one who has no right to presume to do so. No restitution will be required of them in exchange for this plenary indulgence nor any pledge extracted to alter their customary behavior. They can continue to be exactly what they are and what they have always been -- the scourge of their countrymen. The only difference will be that the U.S. shall not challenge their right to be tyrants.
The "Obama Doctrine" is far from progressive; it is, in fact, the very definition of reactionary, a throwback to the divine right of kings. Had he never enunciated it, he would never have received the support of the Damas de Blanco because their hopes for the freedom of Cuba's political prisoners would still be centered around freedom for all Cubans. Now they are convinced that if Obama is elected president in November the prospect of all Cubans regaining their freedom will be reduced to almost nothing, while, ironically, the prospect that 230 Cubans, among the least free of Castro's subjects, will regain theirs is almost guaranteed. Under such circumstances the Damas de Blanco are entirely right to get what is within their reach especially since it is what they most want.
Friday, May 30, 2008
What, No Drug Tests?
Barack Obama has just released a one-page letter from his doctor attesting to his "excellent health" and pronouncing him "medically-fit to serve as president." Last week, John McCain granted reporters access to more than 1200 pages of his medical records. Obama's physician for nearly half his life, Dr. David L. Scheiner of Chicago, has not examined his patient since 2006. Yet he has no qualms pronouncing him in "excellent health" today. Obama's campaign claims that the 300-words or so contained in Dr. Scheiner letter constitutes "a complete summary of [Obama's] doctor visits and medical records for the past two decades." William Strunk and E.B. White should have been that good.
I wonder what the media reaction would have been if McCain had released a one-page letter from his doctor as the sum total of his medical history? The general inference would have been that he had something to hide because of his age. Yet the sickest man ever to occupy the White House was also the youngest man ever elected president, John F. Kennedy. Everything about his health except his bad back was concealed from the public. The bad back was a war injury and hence could serve as his "Achilles heel." Unless you count his Nicorette gum, Obama has no "Achilles heel," none, at least, that could be mentioned in 300 words or less.
I wonder what the media reaction would have been if McCain had released a one-page letter from his doctor as the sum total of his medical history? The general inference would have been that he had something to hide because of his age. Yet the sickest man ever to occupy the White House was also the youngest man ever elected president, John F. Kennedy. Everything about his health except his bad back was concealed from the public. The bad back was a war injury and hence could serve as his "Achilles heel." Unless you count his Nicorette gum, Obama has no "Achilles heel," none, at least, that could be mentioned in 300 words or less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
