The United States would never think of violating Cuban sovereignty again by removing the tyrant it installed 50 years ago in our country, but it has no problem usurping that very sovereignty by committing atrocities on Cuban soil which U.S. law would prohibit on U.S. territory.
Guantánamo Naval Base, of course, is Cuban territory under U.S. jurisdiction. It was leased "in perpetuity" in 1901 as a naval coaling station during the U.S. Occupation of the island that followed the Spanish-American War. The U.S. refused to end its occupation unless Cuba's Constituent Assembly approved the lease of Guantánamo and incorporated the Platt Amendment into the new Cuban Constitution. Actually, the Americans originally wanted ten bases in Cuba. It was a pyrrhic victory that Cubans were able to keep them to one.
Under international law, then as now, the U.S. could not just take a chunk of Cuban territory as recompense for "liberating it." France, after all, did not claim Chesapeake Bay as its due for winning America's independence at Yorktown in 1789. Nor, do I think, will the U.S. claim the oil fields in Iraq as compensation for liberating it. Back in 1901, however, the U.S. was just getting its bearings as an imperialist power and pretty much did as it wanted in regard to its pseudo-colonies. That "lease in perpetuity" was a triumph of American gunboat diplomacy. Under international law, no such thing ever existed before or since.
No doubt the U.S. would have returned Guantánamo to Cuban jurisdiction at the time it agreed to cede the Panama Canal to Panama except for Fidel Castro. The Panama Canal Zone, where, incidentally, John McCain was born during his father's term of service there, was indeed U.S. territory, not "leased" from the Panamanians. Guantánamo is not. It is that legal fact which allowed the Bush administration to subvert the Constitution and the Rule of Law by aping the worst abuses of Fidel Castro in the land where, apparently, all rights end for everybody.
Since Castro does it to his own people, Bush figured that he was also entitled to torture his enemies on Cuban soil, deprive them of all rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention, and, without bringing charges against them in an American court, hold them indefinitely as the U.S. once did the Mariel excludables. Infinitely worse than the internment of the Japanese during World War II as "enemy aliens," the confinement of these 270 political prisoners under truly inhuman conditions and in violation of all norms of international law has weakened the U.S. position as an advocate of human rights throughout the world and led directly to the revamping of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which in the past had condemned Communist Cuba but which is now controlled by its terrorist allies, and the election of a Sandinista relique as president of the General Assembly. George Bush not only did great damage to this country but empowered, indeed, resurrected its enemies when he agreed to stand on the same moral plane with them.
Today the Supreme Court restored America's moral equilibrium when it ruled that the detainees at Guantánamo have the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. Courts. In a 5-4 decision, it struck down the parts of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that would have created special military tribunals to hear their cases. Under the provisions of this Act the detainees would not have been allowed access to the evidence against them and hence would not have been able to refute it (if, in fact, any such evidence existed). It is the closest that the U.S. has ever come to establishing star chambres since the Sedition Act of 1798. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that "The laws and the Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, even in extraordinary times." We should all hope so.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
RCAB News: A Visit from the Vatican
A visit from vatican.va [Holy See (Vatican City State)] this morning at 5:52:23 PM. They used google.it to search for "Catholic martyrs against Communism." Glad that someone there is still interested.
Read the articles that the pope (or a seminarian) read:
http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com/search?q=fray
Read the articles that the pope (or a seminarian) read:
http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com/search?q=fray
Notable & Unbelievable: "I Know What Newt Thinks Better than Newt"
"Great video of Newt, damn I'm pissed that he didn't run for president, talking about oil. Except for the last bit about the incredibly flexible theory of man-made global warming. I have to believe that he doesn't really buy into that garbage. If he does then it invalidates the whole first part of the video." -- Henry Louis Gómez, "Common Sense About Oil," Babalú, June 12, 2008
Henry's new mission in life is to solve the oil crisis. Anything that consumes some of his time and commandeers some of his brain matter to a subject other than Cuba is always welcome. Today he has posted a video of Newt Gingrich with a curious caption. First, of course, he laments that Gingrich "didn't run for president." I was under the impression that he did and nobody wanted him. In any case, if Newt had won the nomination, it would have been a hard call for me which to repudiate the most, the white or the black mountebank. Henry does not remember that Newt was the architect of the resurgence of xenophobia in this country with Hispanics targetted as the new blacks. But Henry can excuse a lot of things in his idols. He even forgives Newt's embrace of global warming because he "has to believe that [Newt] doesn't buy into that garbage." He doesn't give Bush or McCain the benefit of the doubt when they repeat the standard received wisdom about global warming. I guess that Henry really has to like a guy to believe that he's insincere.
Babaloo's Waterloos: Fanning the Flames of Xenophobia at Refugee Blog
Henry's new mission in life is to solve the oil crisis. Anything that consumes some of his time and commandeers some of his brain matter to a subject other than Cuba is always welcome. Today he has posted a video of Newt Gingrich with a curious caption. First, of course, he laments that Gingrich "didn't run for president." I was under the impression that he did and nobody wanted him. In any case, if Newt had won the nomination, it would have been a hard call for me which to repudiate the most, the white or the black mountebank. Henry does not remember that Newt was the architect of the resurgence of xenophobia in this country with Hispanics targetted as the new blacks. But Henry can excuse a lot of things in his idols. He even forgives Newt's embrace of global warming because he "has to believe that [Newt] doesn't buy into that garbage." He doesn't give Bush or McCain the benefit of the doubt when they repeat the standard received wisdom about global warming. I guess that Henry really has to like a guy to believe that he's insincere.
Babaloo's Waterloos: Fanning the Flames of Xenophobia at Refugee Blog
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Cuban-American History 901: The Virginia Ham
From TIME MAGAZINE,
Monday, Dec. 08, 1947
Good Will
Flying a stripped-down P-51, Pilot Woodrow ("Woody") Edmondson had rushed the gift from Washington to Havana in a record-breaking 3½ hours. A palace photographer was on hand to snap the presentation — of a fine 15-lb. ham from Virginia's Governor William Tuck to Cuba's President Ramón Grau San Martín. Unwittingly, Virginia's Tuck had given habaneros their joke of the month.
When Cubans want to say a politician has been grafting, they say está en el jamón—he's in the ham. That was why last week's picture of Grau receiving the Virginia ham was good for Page One of Prensa Libre. Other papers and the radio joined the fun. So did Grau himself. Said he to his friend Congressman Primitivo Rodríguez: "Primitivo, I'll give you a good slice."
***
Grau was famous for his dry wit in Cuba and beyond, as this "news bite" from Time Magazine shows. A thousand anecdotes in a similar vein could be told about him and some like this one would actually be true. But Grau was more than just a colorful personality. When he took the oath of office in 1933, Grau, a university professor installed as president by his students, refused to swear allegiance to the 1901 Constitution because it contained the Platt Amendment and instead swore allegiance to the Cuban people. 28 U.S. warships in Havana Harbour waited the order to land. It never came. Instead, a year later Cuba and the U.S. signed a protocal abrogating the Platt Amendment.
Grau's first (and only) "Hundred Days" in office were the most productive in Cuban history in terms of social legislation thanks to his minister of the interior Antonio Guiteras y Holmes, who created Cuba's version of the "New Deal" before Roosevelt coopted Mussolini's programme. The other signal event of Grau's administration was the promotion of a sergeant named Batista to colonel-in-chief of the Army. Batista then removed Grau.
Ironically, after losing to Batista for president in 1940, Grau became his successor four years later when Batista presided over free elections that saw his own handpicked candidate defeated. Grau's second administration, which his followers believed would be a continuation of his first, was instead rife with corruption and anarchy. But even the venality of public officials and the unchecked lawlessness of gangsters like Fidel Castro could not slow down the progress that was already integral and self-perpetuating in Cuba. Nothing, indeed, could ever have stopped it except the destruction of the republic and imposition of a communist regime on the island.
Jamón of all kinds was plentiful in Cuba before the Revolution and was not the limit of a man's aspirations in life but the foretaste of bigger and better things to come. Jamón was never as literal then as it is today. When one says that someone "está en el jamón" today it literally means that ham is not a figment of imagination as it is for most Cubans. Before 1959, practically everybody was "en el jamón" in Cuba if we limit the definition to the pork product. Cubans were also the third-largest per capita consumers of beef in the hemisphere, after Argentina and Uruguay, the world's biggest. So, yes, neither ham nor beef were the rarities on the Cuban table that they are today and eating a bistec was not punishable by 10 years in prison nor eating a ham an existential experience in the Cuba of yesteryear.
I find it alike unacceptable to hear Cubans from the island speaking resentfully of the ham which exiles consume here (as if the governor of Virginia sent us all hams) as I do when Val Prieto asserts that Cubans on the island are not supposed to want ham much less eat it, which, true to form, he does in a post entitled "Everybody Wants Ham." It is Val's fantasy that Communist Cuba is some kind of voluntary "Club Unfed" where nobody works but everybody wants ham. His ham.
Val is especially angry with Cubans who return to the island of their own volition because they were not able to acclimate to life in this country as some birds return to their cages even after having been freed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the Republic of Cuba was an original signatory, guarantees to everyone the right to enter or leave his country of birth without restrictions whatsoever. We cannot demand that the Castro regime recognize that inalienable right and at the same time ostrasize Cubans who choose to avail themselves of it to return to Cuba whatever their reasons (even if to their detriment). We are no more master of them than Castro is.
Yoani Sánchez and her husband are among those who returned. From Switzerland. With their young son. Will Val impugn their character or allege that they did it for the "jamón," as the regime does in fact claim? He is nobody to judge them. Neither does he have the right to judge any other Cuban for what in every case is a private decision.
And what is this curious chant and declination of jamón?
"Jamon jamon jamon. Jamas jame jamon."
Some kind of personal mantra?
The Prieto family motto?
Or a petty and puerile taunt directed at starving Cubans for wishing to eat above their station in life?
We must not forget that Val believes that (more) starvation is a necessary imposition on them if Cuba is ever to be free.
POSTSCRIPT:
LittleGator again unmans Val, as is becoming customary in the "Comments" section:
People returning permanently to Cuba, particularly from the U.S., is an extremely rare event. Although, I guess the guy in the video made what to him was a logical choice. He has his entire family there. He missed them. He is a musician, and apparently got no gigs here. He was born and raised in the revolution, and found it difficult (impossible) to adapt to life here.
I have one question though, what is the point of this post? What is the "larger lesson" you seek to impart? Why "jamon"? Are you suggesting that all Cubans in Cuba are lazy and don't want to work?
Posted by: LittleGator at June 11, 2008 06:54 PM
Geez, LG, were you born a sanctimonious asshole, or do you have to work at it?
Posted by: Val Prieto at June 11, 2008 07:36 PM
So, what was the point Val?
Posted by: LittleGator at June 11, 2008 08:32 PM
The point is that your an asshole. Anything else? You need me to cut your steaks and spoon feed you your compota as well?
Posted by: Val Prieto at June 12, 2008 11:25 AM
Monday, Dec. 08, 1947
Good Will
Flying a stripped-down P-51, Pilot Woodrow ("Woody") Edmondson had rushed the gift from Washington to Havana in a record-breaking 3½ hours. A palace photographer was on hand to snap the presentation — of a fine 15-lb. ham from Virginia's Governor William Tuck to Cuba's President Ramón Grau San Martín. Unwittingly, Virginia's Tuck had given habaneros their joke of the month.
When Cubans want to say a politician has been grafting, they say está en el jamón—he's in the ham. That was why last week's picture of Grau receiving the Virginia ham was good for Page One of Prensa Libre. Other papers and the radio joined the fun. So did Grau himself. Said he to his friend Congressman Primitivo Rodríguez: "Primitivo, I'll give you a good slice."
Grau was famous for his dry wit in Cuba and beyond, as this "news bite" from Time Magazine shows. A thousand anecdotes in a similar vein could be told about him and some like this one would actually be true. But Grau was more than just a colorful personality. When he took the oath of office in 1933, Grau, a university professor installed as president by his students, refused to swear allegiance to the 1901 Constitution because it contained the Platt Amendment and instead swore allegiance to the Cuban people. 28 U.S. warships in Havana Harbour waited the order to land. It never came. Instead, a year later Cuba and the U.S. signed a protocal abrogating the Platt Amendment.
Grau's first (and only) "Hundred Days" in office were the most productive in Cuban history in terms of social legislation thanks to his minister of the interior Antonio Guiteras y Holmes, who created Cuba's version of the "New Deal" before Roosevelt coopted Mussolini's programme. The other signal event of Grau's administration was the promotion of a sergeant named Batista to colonel-in-chief of the Army. Batista then removed Grau.
Ironically, after losing to Batista for president in 1940, Grau became his successor four years later when Batista presided over free elections that saw his own handpicked candidate defeated. Grau's second administration, which his followers believed would be a continuation of his first, was instead rife with corruption and anarchy. But even the venality of public officials and the unchecked lawlessness of gangsters like Fidel Castro could not slow down the progress that was already integral and self-perpetuating in Cuba. Nothing, indeed, could ever have stopped it except the destruction of the republic and imposition of a communist regime on the island.
Jamón of all kinds was plentiful in Cuba before the Revolution and was not the limit of a man's aspirations in life but the foretaste of bigger and better things to come. Jamón was never as literal then as it is today. When one says that someone "está en el jamón" today it literally means that ham is not a figment of imagination as it is for most Cubans. Before 1959, practically everybody was "en el jamón" in Cuba if we limit the definition to the pork product. Cubans were also the third-largest per capita consumers of beef in the hemisphere, after Argentina and Uruguay, the world's biggest. So, yes, neither ham nor beef were the rarities on the Cuban table that they are today and eating a bistec was not punishable by 10 years in prison nor eating a ham an existential experience in the Cuba of yesteryear.
I find it alike unacceptable to hear Cubans from the island speaking resentfully of the ham which exiles consume here (as if the governor of Virginia sent us all hams) as I do when Val Prieto asserts that Cubans on the island are not supposed to want ham much less eat it, which, true to form, he does in a post entitled "Everybody Wants Ham." It is Val's fantasy that Communist Cuba is some kind of voluntary "Club Unfed" where nobody works but everybody wants ham. His ham.
Val is especially angry with Cubans who return to the island of their own volition because they were not able to acclimate to life in this country as some birds return to their cages even after having been freed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the Republic of Cuba was an original signatory, guarantees to everyone the right to enter or leave his country of birth without restrictions whatsoever. We cannot demand that the Castro regime recognize that inalienable right and at the same time ostrasize Cubans who choose to avail themselves of it to return to Cuba whatever their reasons (even if to their detriment). We are no more master of them than Castro is.
Yoani Sánchez and her husband are among those who returned. From Switzerland. With their young son. Will Val impugn their character or allege that they did it for the "jamón," as the regime does in fact claim? He is nobody to judge them. Neither does he have the right to judge any other Cuban for what in every case is a private decision.
And what is this curious chant and declination of jamón?
"Jamon jamon jamon. Jamas jame jamon."
Some kind of personal mantra?
The Prieto family motto?
Or a petty and puerile taunt directed at starving Cubans for wishing to eat above their station in life?
We must not forget that Val believes that (more) starvation is a necessary imposition on them if Cuba is ever to be free.
POSTSCRIPT:
LittleGator again unmans Val, as is becoming customary in the "Comments" section:
People returning permanently to Cuba, particularly from the U.S., is an extremely rare event. Although, I guess the guy in the video made what to him was a logical choice. He has his entire family there. He missed them. He is a musician, and apparently got no gigs here. He was born and raised in the revolution, and found it difficult (impossible) to adapt to life here.
I have one question though, what is the point of this post? What is the "larger lesson" you seek to impart? Why "jamon"? Are you suggesting that all Cubans in Cuba are lazy and don't want to work?
Posted by: LittleGator at June 11, 2008 06:54 PM
Geez, LG, were you born a sanctimonious asshole, or do you have to work at it?
Posted by: Val Prieto at June 11, 2008 07:36 PM
So, what was the point Val?
Posted by: LittleGator at June 11, 2008 08:32 PM
The point is that your an asshole. Anything else? You need me to cut your steaks and spoon feed you your compota as well?
Posted by: Val Prieto at June 12, 2008 11:25 AM
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Subcomandante Henry
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
