I am going to endorse Val Prieto's appeal to all Cubans, regardless of parochial differences, to sign the petition calling for the release of Cuba's political prisoners which is being promoted by a coalition of human rights and civic organizations on the island, in exile and internationally, including Amnesty International, CANF, El Nuevo Herald, Freedom House, Las Damas en Blanco, Plantados and scores of other groups that do not always coalesce on the subject of Cuba. It is their objective to collect 1 million signatures in support of the petition. They could collect 100 million and it would not influence the Castro regime to cease being what it is and has always been -- the scourge of the Cuban people. I do not think that even those who are circulating the petition can have even the slightest hope that it will accomplish its stated end. What it will do, and what it has already done, is to unite disparate groups in common cause on behalf of Cuba, which is as important as obtaining the release of 220 Cuban political prisoners. So do sign the petition: it cannot do any harm and it has already done some good.
That much said, I would be less than honest if I did not point out that it is absolutely ridiculous, outrageous and inexcusable to claim that there are only 220 political prisoners in Castro's jails. That is like saying that there were only 660 inmates in Hitler's concentration camps (which, in fact, some Holocaust revisionists contend). In fact, most prisoners in Cuban jails are political prisoners because they have been convicted of "crimes" which are not penalized anywhere else but in Communist Cuba. It would be closer to the truth to say that every prisoner incarcerated by Castro is a political prisoner than to claim that only 220 are. Where there is no Rule of Law, there can be no justice. When the administration of what passes as "law" is in the hands of criminals and the State itself is a criminal enterprise, no man convicted under such a dispensation can be considered guilty and no sanction imposed on him legitimate. It is offensive to any concept of morality to claim that there could be one group of prisoners that received "justice" at the hands of a criminal State and another that did not.
Add three zeros to the end of "220" figure and you would be infinitely closer to the truth than without the three zeros. If the figure of "220" is all that these hundred-odd human rights groups could agree upon, then unity has been purchased at the price of historical accuracy, to put it as charitably as possible. Still, it is better to do something than to do nothing, to speak out than to remain silent. We do not always have the luxury of standing on principle when human lives are at stake. Sometimes the principle must be shunted aside in order to save the life. Better to save one drowning man from a shipwreck because one can than to let him drown because one cannot save the others.
So go ahead and sign the petition for the sake of the 220 and hope that by highlighting their plight you might be able to advance the cause of the other 220,000, or, indeed, 12 million:
http://www.peticioncuba.org/sign.php?l=en
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The Rise and Fall of the United States: The Final Chapter?
The greatest charlatan in the history of American politics stands posed on the threshhold of the White House. Between Barack Obama and the end of American democracy stand Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Hillary is as inexperienced and nearly as beholden to left-wing interests as Obama and she carries the worst imaginable baggage in the world (Bill). Still, she is so venal that it is doubtful she would ever topple the system that nurtured her. She would leave the presidency discredited, as did her husband; but the stronger for having survived her calamitous tenure. If Obama is elected, it is doubtful that the presidency as we know it will survive him. At least he will do everything in his power to make sure that it doesn't.
Obama differs, first and foremost, from Hillary in that he is a crackpot, while she is eminently practical and bereft of all illusions, cynical almost. By crackpot I mean, of course, that Obama is the spirit child of Jeremiah Wright. The reverend's skewered worldview is also Obama's, his belief that America is an agent of evil in the world that must be humbled is also shared by Obama, his willingness to appease America's enemies and his hostility to its allies, is also derived from Wright. Obama's politics revolve around Wright's teachings as the earth does around the sun. He has spent 20 years reflecting those beliefs before audiences receptive to them. Had Wright not exposed himself for what he was and left absolutely no room for maneuvering around him, Obama might even have selected him to offer the prayer at his inauguration.
Political platitudes, meaningless diatribes about indescript dreams a la Walt Disney, are the means Obama employs to conceal his real agenda. If he didn't believe that the American public would recoil at his thinking he would not endeavor camouflage it under popularist rhetoric which hints at everything but commits to nothing. If his message were safe for Americans to hear he would have no difficulty enunciating it. But the Wright debacle convinced Obama, or, rather, confirmed Obama in the belief, that the less Americans know about him and his associations, the better. Wright, of course, is not the worst of it. The reverend is merely a purveyor of hate, a divider, a despicable cheerleader of vicarious revolution, and, of course, Obama's mentor and spiritual guide. There are other longtime Obama supporters and sponsors to whom he is beholden not merely for ideas but for the means to advance rapidly in a career without acquiring any distinction in it. Thanks to them the senator with the least seniority and least distinguished record, who, in his 3 years in the Senate, has scrupulously avoided voting on any controversial issues while still managing to compile a 100% rating as a liberal, is going to be the nominee of the party whose last victory was obtained by running away from everything that the Democrats have stood for in the last 75 years.
That someone of his ideological purity, a socialist by any definition, has managed to challenge and nearly overthrow the political heir of that last victory, shows that the radicals within the Democratic party are taking it back with a vengeance. It is not that he they have co-opted Obama, but, rather, nurtured him from the first day of his political career. And, of course, we don't just mean just the limousine liberals, but the liberals behind the barricades, exemplified by the Weather Underground and other terrorist or quasi-terrortist organizations, soaked in Communist ideology, whose aim then and now is the overthrow of democracy in America and the imposition of a Castro-style dictatorship.
Obama's first act as president will be to redeem the debt which all radicals owe to Fidel Castro for fomenting unrest and supporting terrorism in this country for nearly 50 years. It is the mission of Barack Obama, one of the few things to which he has actually committed himself. His willingness to talk to Raúl Castro, or, even, to be drivelled upon by Fidel, is too great an obsession in him to be denied. By offering to negotiate with the Castro regime without prior conditions he has, in effect, not only validated every horror that Fidel Castro has perpetrated on the Cuban people in the last half-century but given the green light to any and all predations that Raúl might inflict on them between now and the time that Obama sits down to talk to him. As Obama exchanges pleasantries with Raúl, his henchmen could be torturing a political prisoner in the next room and it would make absolutely no difference to this moral apostate who asks nothing of tyrants but their hospitality.
Of course, Barack Obama is not yet president. There is one more hurdle that he must overcome. In the final battle against McCain, he will be seconded by the MSM, which have favored him in the race against Hillary but have not let their hand show until the very last days of the primary season. From the party conventions to the election, their bias will know no restraint and offer no apology. It would really be hopeless except for the fact that Obama's appeal is greatest in Democratic constituencies within predominantly Republican states. In the contest with Hillary he has lost all of the big states which he would have to carry in November in order to win the presidency. It is hard to imagine any coalition of states which he could assemble that would get him over the electoral vote hump. Obama will be a greater unifying force for Republicans than for Democrats (27% of whom affirm that they will not vote for Obama if he is their party's candidate). Bush's disastrous presidency and McCain's diluted conservative credentials will mean nothing when the prospect of an Obama presidency looms as the alternative.
Obama differs, first and foremost, from Hillary in that he is a crackpot, while she is eminently practical and bereft of all illusions, cynical almost. By crackpot I mean, of course, that Obama is the spirit child of Jeremiah Wright. The reverend's skewered worldview is also Obama's, his belief that America is an agent of evil in the world that must be humbled is also shared by Obama, his willingness to appease America's enemies and his hostility to its allies, is also derived from Wright. Obama's politics revolve around Wright's teachings as the earth does around the sun. He has spent 20 years reflecting those beliefs before audiences receptive to them. Had Wright not exposed himself for what he was and left absolutely no room for maneuvering around him, Obama might even have selected him to offer the prayer at his inauguration.
Political platitudes, meaningless diatribes about indescript dreams a la Walt Disney, are the means Obama employs to conceal his real agenda. If he didn't believe that the American public would recoil at his thinking he would not endeavor camouflage it under popularist rhetoric which hints at everything but commits to nothing. If his message were safe for Americans to hear he would have no difficulty enunciating it. But the Wright debacle convinced Obama, or, rather, confirmed Obama in the belief, that the less Americans know about him and his associations, the better. Wright, of course, is not the worst of it. The reverend is merely a purveyor of hate, a divider, a despicable cheerleader of vicarious revolution, and, of course, Obama's mentor and spiritual guide. There are other longtime Obama supporters and sponsors to whom he is beholden not merely for ideas but for the means to advance rapidly in a career without acquiring any distinction in it. Thanks to them the senator with the least seniority and least distinguished record, who, in his 3 years in the Senate, has scrupulously avoided voting on any controversial issues while still managing to compile a 100% rating as a liberal, is going to be the nominee of the party whose last victory was obtained by running away from everything that the Democrats have stood for in the last 75 years.
That someone of his ideological purity, a socialist by any definition, has managed to challenge and nearly overthrow the political heir of that last victory, shows that the radicals within the Democratic party are taking it back with a vengeance. It is not that he they have co-opted Obama, but, rather, nurtured him from the first day of his political career. And, of course, we don't just mean just the limousine liberals, but the liberals behind the barricades, exemplified by the Weather Underground and other terrorist or quasi-terrortist organizations, soaked in Communist ideology, whose aim then and now is the overthrow of democracy in America and the imposition of a Castro-style dictatorship.
Obama's first act as president will be to redeem the debt which all radicals owe to Fidel Castro for fomenting unrest and supporting terrorism in this country for nearly 50 years. It is the mission of Barack Obama, one of the few things to which he has actually committed himself. His willingness to talk to Raúl Castro, or, even, to be drivelled upon by Fidel, is too great an obsession in him to be denied. By offering to negotiate with the Castro regime without prior conditions he has, in effect, not only validated every horror that Fidel Castro has perpetrated on the Cuban people in the last half-century but given the green light to any and all predations that Raúl might inflict on them between now and the time that Obama sits down to talk to him. As Obama exchanges pleasantries with Raúl, his henchmen could be torturing a political prisoner in the next room and it would make absolutely no difference to this moral apostate who asks nothing of tyrants but their hospitality.
Of course, Barack Obama is not yet president. There is one more hurdle that he must overcome. In the final battle against McCain, he will be seconded by the MSM, which have favored him in the race against Hillary but have not let their hand show until the very last days of the primary season. From the party conventions to the election, their bias will know no restraint and offer no apology. It would really be hopeless except for the fact that Obama's appeal is greatest in Democratic constituencies within predominantly Republican states. In the contest with Hillary he has lost all of the big states which he would have to carry in November in order to win the presidency. It is hard to imagine any coalition of states which he could assemble that would get him over the electoral vote hump. Obama will be a greater unifying force for Republicans than for Democrats (27% of whom affirm that they will not vote for Obama if he is their party's candidate). Bush's disastrous presidency and McCain's diluted conservative credentials will mean nothing when the prospect of an Obama presidency looms as the alternative.
Prime Minister Offers Welfare to Jamaican Students in Cuba
"If you are Jamaicans studying here, we have a responsibility to all of you. Therefore, I intend to arrange that no matter what was the source of your scholarship, once you are here as Jamaican students, you are to be included in the programme of financial support that we offer." -- Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding, while on a state visit to Cuba, May 4, 2008
No independent media is more pro-Castro than Jamaica's. It might be possible to say that its local media are even more pro-Castro than Communist Cuba's official media. The Cuban media, which is read worldwide through the internet, is somewhat constrained in its mendacity by that fact; but no one is monitoring Jamaica's media, and, therefore, there is no lie too big for them to report about Cuba. Nearly 50 years of such deceptive reportage has achieved near-unanimous support for the Castro regime among Jamaicans. Yet, there is this little thing that gives me hope, however. Jamaicans no longer flock to Cuba, as they did before 1959, in search of jobs and opportunities closed to them at home. In that respect Cuba was to Jamaica then what the U.S. is to Mexican migrants today. No longer. It is Cuba that is poor now and Jamaica that is (relatively) wealthy, thanks, no doubt, to the imposition of Communism in Cuba, which did more to spur Jamaica's development than any other factor in its history.
Obviously, Jamaicans do have some inkling of the truth beneath the hard veneer of respect for the traditional regional hagemon. Ironically, the couriers of the truth about Cuba are the Jamaican students sent there to study on scholarship. They live very close to the Cuban people, that is, they are not immured like Europeans from the misery of their existance but eat (or don't eat) at the same table.
The regime hopes these becados will be good-will ambassadors and staunch supporters of Cuban-Jamaican solidarity in the future, that is, when the degrees they acquired in Cuba secure them lucrative employment at home as doctors, engineers and government officials, something, incidentally, which the same degrees won't do for their Cuban counterparts unless they, too, leave Cuba.
In the meantime, however, the Jamaican students must survive their stay in Cuba and they have grown tired, it seems, of doing in Cuba as the Cubans do. The becados have used the occasion of Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding's ongoing three-day visit to Cuba to petition their government for more financial assistance. Those on scholarship who were sent there under an agreement with the Jamaican government and Castro regime are already receiving assistance, but those sponsored by Jamaica's former ruling party under an agreement with Cuba's Communist Party were not. The prime minister has promised that all Jamaican students in Cuba will henceforth be entititled to participate in his country's programme of financial support (i.e. welfare). He has also pledged to raise the annual stipend above the current U.S. $1200 per annum, which he called "inadequate."
Consider that the average Cuban earns $180 per year and Jamaican welfare in comparison seems almost princely. The Jamaican Gleaner, in reporting this news, was careful not to elaborate on it. Perhaps it hopes that Jamaicans will think that their government is only now providing for its students what Cuba has always furnished to theirs. A great deal of propaganda about Communist Cuba involves not only reproducing the official lies but withholding any information that would expose the lies. In this case, however, the facts speak for themselves. To live as Cubans do has now been deemed "inadequate" by Jamaica's own prime minister. Castro offers Jamaican students everything that Cubans students get, including meals and lodging. Yet not only is this "inadequate" for Jamaicans but US$1200 on top of that is also deemed "inadequate!"
There are several hundred thousand Cubans that are descendents of Jamaicans who arrived in Cuba before 1959, many of these sons and daughters of Jamaicans (and hence holding dual nationality). Prime Minister Golding will be meeting with representatives of Cuban-Jamaicans today. I hope he offers them the same generous assistance that he has extended to Jamaican students in Cuba.
Also of interest:
Cuban Ambassador Puts On Fashion Show In Jamaica to Mark "Cuba Day" There (Updated)
Notable & Cretinous: Cubans Have Enemies in Their Backyard, Too
No independent media is more pro-Castro than Jamaica's. It might be possible to say that its local media are even more pro-Castro than Communist Cuba's official media. The Cuban media, which is read worldwide through the internet, is somewhat constrained in its mendacity by that fact; but no one is monitoring Jamaica's media, and, therefore, there is no lie too big for them to report about Cuba. Nearly 50 years of such deceptive reportage has achieved near-unanimous support for the Castro regime among Jamaicans. Yet, there is this little thing that gives me hope, however. Jamaicans no longer flock to Cuba, as they did before 1959, in search of jobs and opportunities closed to them at home. In that respect Cuba was to Jamaica then what the U.S. is to Mexican migrants today. No longer. It is Cuba that is poor now and Jamaica that is (relatively) wealthy, thanks, no doubt, to the imposition of Communism in Cuba, which did more to spur Jamaica's development than any other factor in its history.
Obviously, Jamaicans do have some inkling of the truth beneath the hard veneer of respect for the traditional regional hagemon. Ironically, the couriers of the truth about Cuba are the Jamaican students sent there to study on scholarship. They live very close to the Cuban people, that is, they are not immured like Europeans from the misery of their existance but eat (or don't eat) at the same table.
The regime hopes these becados will be good-will ambassadors and staunch supporters of Cuban-Jamaican solidarity in the future, that is, when the degrees they acquired in Cuba secure them lucrative employment at home as doctors, engineers and government officials, something, incidentally, which the same degrees won't do for their Cuban counterparts unless they, too, leave Cuba.
In the meantime, however, the Jamaican students must survive their stay in Cuba and they have grown tired, it seems, of doing in Cuba as the Cubans do. The becados have used the occasion of Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding's ongoing three-day visit to Cuba to petition their government for more financial assistance. Those on scholarship who were sent there under an agreement with the Jamaican government and Castro regime are already receiving assistance, but those sponsored by Jamaica's former ruling party under an agreement with Cuba's Communist Party were not. The prime minister has promised that all Jamaican students in Cuba will henceforth be entititled to participate in his country's programme of financial support (i.e. welfare). He has also pledged to raise the annual stipend above the current U.S. $1200 per annum, which he called "inadequate."
Consider that the average Cuban earns $180 per year and Jamaican welfare in comparison seems almost princely. The Jamaican Gleaner, in reporting this news, was careful not to elaborate on it. Perhaps it hopes that Jamaicans will think that their government is only now providing for its students what Cuba has always furnished to theirs. A great deal of propaganda about Communist Cuba involves not only reproducing the official lies but withholding any information that would expose the lies. In this case, however, the facts speak for themselves. To live as Cubans do has now been deemed "inadequate" by Jamaica's own prime minister. Castro offers Jamaican students everything that Cubans students get, including meals and lodging. Yet not only is this "inadequate" for Jamaicans but US$1200 on top of that is also deemed "inadequate!"
There are several hundred thousand Cubans that are descendents of Jamaicans who arrived in Cuba before 1959, many of these sons and daughters of Jamaicans (and hence holding dual nationality). Prime Minister Golding will be meeting with representatives of Cuban-Jamaicans today. I hope he offers them the same generous assistance that he has extended to Jamaican students in Cuba.
Also of interest:
Cuban Ambassador Puts On Fashion Show In Jamaica to Mark "Cuba Day" There (Updated)
Notable & Cretinous: Cubans Have Enemies in Their Backyard, Too
Monday, May 5, 2008
Finally, the "Breakout Post" at Babalú! ¡Ándale! ¡Ándale!
Cinco de Mayo has proved to be a lucky day at Babalú and its denizens are celebrating in the spirit of the day by drinking themselves into a stupor. Finally, one of their posts has taken off and reached a new record of 18 comments. Granted, it has taken the efforts of half its contributing editors to reach that landmark number, and even then the 18 are only two comments more than Babalú's roster of contributors. But "let's not be small, let's not keep books."
The post ("Happy Cinco De Mayo Infidels") is not about Cuba. Nearly or remotely. It's all about the occasions for drinking which the different (inter)national holidays provide for Americans (St. Patrick's Day, Oktoberfest, etc.). Cigar Mike — and now we have a better idea of why he chose that name — also mentions Bob Marley's birthday as an occasion for "smoking a spliff or drinking Red Stripe (although I think that beer taste like swill — sorry folks).
What can we say?
What is there left to say?
Is my own commentary even necessary anymore?
They have crossed the Rubicon of meaninglessness and have taken the beachhead of stupidity.
The post ("Happy Cinco De Mayo Infidels") is not about Cuba. Nearly or remotely. It's all about the occasions for drinking which the different (inter)national holidays provide for Americans (St. Patrick's Day, Oktoberfest, etc.). Cigar Mike — and now we have a better idea of why he chose that name — also mentions Bob Marley's birthday as an occasion for "smoking a spliff or drinking Red Stripe (although I think that beer taste like swill — sorry folks).
What can we say?
What is there left to say?
Is my own commentary even necessary anymore?
They have crossed the Rubicon of meaninglessness and have taken the beachhead of stupidity.
No Food, No Freedom and No Sex Equals Freedom for Cubans, Says Val
Val informs us that there are eight guys at his house from three different companies trying to repair the damage that he did to his kitchen during his recent do-it-yourself-if-you-are-a-fool renovation ["Anecdotal Statistics," Babalú, May 5]. Most of them are recent arrivals from Cuba (for Val even the marielitos are arrivistes). As in the past when he has entertained other proletarians in his home, Val, having nothing else to do, took it upon himself to harass these men as they went about their work, grilling them like some political commissar about their lives in Cuba or prospects in this country, ready to throw them out of his house if anyone manifested some sign of diversionism. To the men themselves Val must have sounded like some little boy who thinks that the men in hard-hats in his house have been sent there to entertain him.
It has long been Val's contention that these recent arrivals are mutated Cubans, having a passing resemblance in the externals to the originals, but woefully deformed in their internal make-up. Val believes the Revolution has conditioned them to be without ambition, robbed them of all initiative and created the expectation that the State would do for them what they won't do for themselves, do it badly and incompletely, granted, and at a very high cost in human dignity and personal freedom, but, in the end, do it nonetheless. He is, therefore, beside himself to discover that despite his worst expectations Cubans raised on the island do have dreams that transcend the ration card and are willing to work 16-hour days to give their children a better life in this country. In short, he is shocked to discover that they are just like us, more, they are us.
So why is this so extraordinary to Val?
It is only the opportunity that the newcomers require; the ambition and initiative have always been there, despite the regime's efforts to crush individuality and stamp out self-sufficiency. But why would Val doubt it and be flabbergasted at the evidence of it? Does he believe that his parents and their generation discovered the work ethic when they arrived in this country, Val in tow, forty odd years ago? Ambition is an innate quality; it can be suffocated in man but can never be extinguished.
At least these latest Cuban handymen were not the great disappointment to him that another ambitious newcomer was last year. Imagine! This guy wanted to save his money so he could visit the island and see his parents, and, horror of horrors, get "laid right and left!" Since he didn't mention a spouse and supposing that he wasn't raping little girls, why the hell should it matter to Val if the guy gets laid from one end of the island to the other? It is not a crime (as yet) for Cubans to have consensual sex on the island. Should it be made a crime to turn up the valve on Val's proverbial pressure cooker? No food, no freedom and no sex, will that do the trick, Val? Will that make you feel better? Of course, Cubans shouldn't have sex because they need all their energy to throw themselves in front of tanks in order to pave the road so that Val himself may be able to return to Cuba some day, and, maybe, even have sex there, when that, of course, is no longer a "revolutionary activity."
The Cuban whom Val berated for wishing to visit and help his family on the island, and, btw, according to Val, for wanting to "get laid right and left" there, supposedly called Val a "gusano." This I doubt very much. Many other words would have been more appropriate. You are thinking of many right now.
It has long been Val's contention that these recent arrivals are mutated Cubans, having a passing resemblance in the externals to the originals, but woefully deformed in their internal make-up. Val believes the Revolution has conditioned them to be without ambition, robbed them of all initiative and created the expectation that the State would do for them what they won't do for themselves, do it badly and incompletely, granted, and at a very high cost in human dignity and personal freedom, but, in the end, do it nonetheless. He is, therefore, beside himself to discover that despite his worst expectations Cubans raised on the island do have dreams that transcend the ration card and are willing to work 16-hour days to give their children a better life in this country. In short, he is shocked to discover that they are just like us, more, they are us.
So why is this so extraordinary to Val?
It is only the opportunity that the newcomers require; the ambition and initiative have always been there, despite the regime's efforts to crush individuality and stamp out self-sufficiency. But why would Val doubt it and be flabbergasted at the evidence of it? Does he believe that his parents and their generation discovered the work ethic when they arrived in this country, Val in tow, forty odd years ago? Ambition is an innate quality; it can be suffocated in man but can never be extinguished.
At least these latest Cuban handymen were not the great disappointment to him that another ambitious newcomer was last year. Imagine! This guy wanted to save his money so he could visit the island and see his parents, and, horror of horrors, get "laid right and left!" Since he didn't mention a spouse and supposing that he wasn't raping little girls, why the hell should it matter to Val if the guy gets laid from one end of the island to the other? It is not a crime (as yet) for Cubans to have consensual sex on the island. Should it be made a crime to turn up the valve on Val's proverbial pressure cooker? No food, no freedom and no sex, will that do the trick, Val? Will that make you feel better? Of course, Cubans shouldn't have sex because they need all their energy to throw themselves in front of tanks in order to pave the road so that Val himself may be able to return to Cuba some day, and, maybe, even have sex there, when that, of course, is no longer a "revolutionary activity."
The Cuban whom Val berated for wishing to visit and help his family on the island, and, btw, according to Val, for wanting to "get laid right and left" there, supposedly called Val a "gusano." This I doubt very much. Many other words would have been more appropriate. You are thinking of many right now.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Why There Has Been No Successful Revolution to Overthrow Castro in 49 Years
Why hasn't there been a revolution in Cuba to topple Fidel Castro? That question is often posed in defense of the Cuban dictator as if the absence of such a revolution argued against the need for one or represented a silent — very silent — referendum on Castro's continuation in power. Of course, there have been many foiled revolutions against the Castro regime over the last 49 years, more, in fact, than we know or will know until the mass graves are excavated and the witnesses can at last break their silence.
In the early years of the regime it was more difficult to conceal popular uprisings: the anti-Castro rebels in the Escambray Mountains, who waged a real revolution as opposed to Castro's operetta revolution in the Sierra Maestra Mountains, were too numerous and successful over too protracted a time to be ignored, and were not, ultimately, defeated by Castro but abandoned by the the Americans, as the freedom fighters of the Brigade 2506 had been abandoned before them. The fact remains, however, that all these attempts to topple Castro, known and unknown, great and small, have failed. Putting aside for the moment U.S. duplicity as a factor, why has no revolution succeeded in toppling a regime which only the greatest disdain for the Cuban people could suppose is acceptable to them or worthy of them?
Perhaps if we examine the history of other revolutions the answer will become clearer.
The American Revolution was possible because Britain's colonial subjects enjoyed all the rights of Englishmen, and, therefore, were the freest people on earth, so free, in fact, that they regarded a penny tax on tea as "tyranny."
The American Republic itself, which replicated British liberties in its Constitution and Bill of Rights, nearly succumbed to a domestic revolution shortly after it was founded known as the "Whiskey Rebellion," when Americans, taught to regard taxation as tyranny, rose against their government because it levied a tax on distilled spirits. Washington himself marched at the head of the army against the "rebellers" (i.e. revolutionists). It was the Whiskey Rebellion that was the real "Second American Revolution," not the War of 1812. If this country's Founding Fathers had created a police state rather than a democracy (flawed, but still a democracy), there would have been no Whiskey Rebellion or even the Great Rebellion (i.e. Civil War), for that matter, because it is freedom not the absence of freedom that provides the necessary conditions for revolutions, rebellions and civil wars.
At the time of the French Revolution, the peasantry of France was Europe's wealthiest and could well afford to eat cake, the popular myth notwithstanding. The Bourbons, though autocratic, were not despotic. When the Bastille was stormed, no political prisoners were found inside and the revolutionaries had to content themselves with freeing a pedophile (the prison's sole inmate). The guillotine was introduced by the Revolution and thousands of political dissidents or just "people in the way" fell prey to it. Under Louis XVI, there were no executions of the opposition. The Reign of Terror began with the Revolution, not the King.
The outcomes of the American Revolution and French Revolution were quite different, but both were made possible because neither George III nor Louis XVI was a despot. Revolutions require a certain amount of freedom to succeed. There has never been a successful revolution against a police state; nor was a revolution ever waged by people with empty bellies. It is the day-to-day struggle to avoid starvation that keeps the people too busy to rebel. A man who is too hungry to rise in the morning will never be able to rise in arms in the evening.
The Cuban Revolution was no exception to this rule, and the fact that the Castro regime is still in power also conforms to it. Before 1959, Cubans enjoyed the highest standard of living in Latin America and were constrained by none of the restrictions of a police state. Most importantly, the Rule of Law prevailed and there was no capital punishment. Castro, when he surrendered in the wake of the terrorist attack on the Moncada barracks, did so because he knew his life was inviolate and that he would live to fight (or run) another day.
Cubans have no such assurances today. Castro's Cuba is a police state which uses food (rationed in Cuba for 47 years) as an instrument of social control and requires internal passports to move from province to province, or city to city. Official permission is even necessary to move to another house across the street and the authorities must be notified when guests (even family) are staying in one's home. On every street, of course, there is an official neighborhood vigilante committee charged with spying upon and denouncing all "unusual activity."
Before Fidel Castro confiscated anything else, he took all firearms from the Cuban people. There was no "gun control" in the Thirteen Colonies, Bourbon France or Batista's Cuba. Without food, without freedom of action and without guns no revolution can succeed. Or, rather, every revolution which is attempted will fail.
The fact that there has been no successful effort to overthrow Fidel Castro in the last 49 years does not argue that the Cuban people have not wanted to overthrow him but that it is impossible for them to do so under prevailing circumstances. They can, certainly, shed rivers of blood; the regime will surely oblige them in that respect and has. They can fill the prisons and the regime will build more prisons; the only "housing stock," incidentally, that has increased in Cuba over the last half century. The Cuban people can choose to die on their feet rather than live on their knees, which means, of course, that they can commit collective suicide and end up that much closer to the ground.
The path that they have taken may not be more heroic but it is certainly more practical than walking off a cliff, which is what Gandhi advised Jews to do in the face of the Holocaust to give the rest of mankind a lesson in "moral greatness." Of course, there can be no morality where there are no mortals, nor humanity without humans. The greatest resistance to tyranny is not to die but to survive. Cubans have had enough martyrs to last us 1000 years, indeed, to share with all mankind. We do not need more martyrs. We needs more survivors, or else the future will not belong to men who love liberty but to men who are content with tyranny.
In the early years of the regime it was more difficult to conceal popular uprisings: the anti-Castro rebels in the Escambray Mountains, who waged a real revolution as opposed to Castro's operetta revolution in the Sierra Maestra Mountains, were too numerous and successful over too protracted a time to be ignored, and were not, ultimately, defeated by Castro but abandoned by the the Americans, as the freedom fighters of the Brigade 2506 had been abandoned before them. The fact remains, however, that all these attempts to topple Castro, known and unknown, great and small, have failed. Putting aside for the moment U.S. duplicity as a factor, why has no revolution succeeded in toppling a regime which only the greatest disdain for the Cuban people could suppose is acceptable to them or worthy of them?
Perhaps if we examine the history of other revolutions the answer will become clearer.
The American Revolution was possible because Britain's colonial subjects enjoyed all the rights of Englishmen, and, therefore, were the freest people on earth, so free, in fact, that they regarded a penny tax on tea as "tyranny."
The American Republic itself, which replicated British liberties in its Constitution and Bill of Rights, nearly succumbed to a domestic revolution shortly after it was founded known as the "Whiskey Rebellion," when Americans, taught to regard taxation as tyranny, rose against their government because it levied a tax on distilled spirits. Washington himself marched at the head of the army against the "rebellers" (i.e. revolutionists). It was the Whiskey Rebellion that was the real "Second American Revolution," not the War of 1812. If this country's Founding Fathers had created a police state rather than a democracy (flawed, but still a democracy), there would have been no Whiskey Rebellion or even the Great Rebellion (i.e. Civil War), for that matter, because it is freedom not the absence of freedom that provides the necessary conditions for revolutions, rebellions and civil wars.
At the time of the French Revolution, the peasantry of France was Europe's wealthiest and could well afford to eat cake, the popular myth notwithstanding. The Bourbons, though autocratic, were not despotic. When the Bastille was stormed, no political prisoners were found inside and the revolutionaries had to content themselves with freeing a pedophile (the prison's sole inmate). The guillotine was introduced by the Revolution and thousands of political dissidents or just "people in the way" fell prey to it. Under Louis XVI, there were no executions of the opposition. The Reign of Terror began with the Revolution, not the King.
The outcomes of the American Revolution and French Revolution were quite different, but both were made possible because neither George III nor Louis XVI was a despot. Revolutions require a certain amount of freedom to succeed. There has never been a successful revolution against a police state; nor was a revolution ever waged by people with empty bellies. It is the day-to-day struggle to avoid starvation that keeps the people too busy to rebel. A man who is too hungry to rise in the morning will never be able to rise in arms in the evening.
The Cuban Revolution was no exception to this rule, and the fact that the Castro regime is still in power also conforms to it. Before 1959, Cubans enjoyed the highest standard of living in Latin America and were constrained by none of the restrictions of a police state. Most importantly, the Rule of Law prevailed and there was no capital punishment. Castro, when he surrendered in the wake of the terrorist attack on the Moncada barracks, did so because he knew his life was inviolate and that he would live to fight (or run) another day.
Cubans have no such assurances today. Castro's Cuba is a police state which uses food (rationed in Cuba for 47 years) as an instrument of social control and requires internal passports to move from province to province, or city to city. Official permission is even necessary to move to another house across the street and the authorities must be notified when guests (even family) are staying in one's home. On every street, of course, there is an official neighborhood vigilante committee charged with spying upon and denouncing all "unusual activity."
Before Fidel Castro confiscated anything else, he took all firearms from the Cuban people. There was no "gun control" in the Thirteen Colonies, Bourbon France or Batista's Cuba. Without food, without freedom of action and without guns no revolution can succeed. Or, rather, every revolution which is attempted will fail.
The fact that there has been no successful effort to overthrow Fidel Castro in the last 49 years does not argue that the Cuban people have not wanted to overthrow him but that it is impossible for them to do so under prevailing circumstances. They can, certainly, shed rivers of blood; the regime will surely oblige them in that respect and has. They can fill the prisons and the regime will build more prisons; the only "housing stock," incidentally, that has increased in Cuba over the last half century. The Cuban people can choose to die on their feet rather than live on their knees, which means, of course, that they can commit collective suicide and end up that much closer to the ground.
The path that they have taken may not be more heroic but it is certainly more practical than walking off a cliff, which is what Gandhi advised Jews to do in the face of the Holocaust to give the rest of mankind a lesson in "moral greatness." Of course, there can be no morality where there are no mortals, nor humanity without humans. The greatest resistance to tyranny is not to die but to survive. Cubans have had enough martyrs to last us 1000 years, indeed, to share with all mankind. We do not need more martyrs. We needs more survivors, or else the future will not belong to men who love liberty but to men who are content with tyranny.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Notable & Prophetic: Obama Reaps What Wright Sowed
"Our choices have consequences, and our behavior has consequences. I've told you for over three decades now: God will forgive you for sowing wild oats. But God's forgiveness don't stop the crop. Them oats you sowed will bring a crop. You will reap what you sow. But stop calling your crops your cross. "Well... that child is just my cross." No, that child is your crop. A cross is a sacrificial vehicle of redemption that you voluntarily pick up; a crop is the result of something you sowed. Our choices have consequences, our behaviors have consequences." — Rev. Jeremiah Wright, sermon delivered on January 27, 2008, at Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago, Illinois
Barack Obama has been very reluctant to gather the crops that he has sown. The reverend is right, for once, that our choices and behaviors have consequences. When Obama joined Wright's congregation, he made a choice and now he is dealing with the consequences of that choice. For 15 years he sat first alone and then with his family imbibing his religion and forming his social conscience under the tutelage of his minister. Obama has called Wright his greatest teacher because he led him to Christ. Now, there are many ways to reach Christ and not all are straight; but surely Obama chose for himself one of the crookedest, and if it led him to Christ then indeed it was a miracle. Wright's teaching could well have led him in another direction as it apparently has led the minister himself.
Wright occupied in Obama's moral cosmology a central place, not the "tangential" one which he now attributes to him. Wright is correct to question the sincerity of Obamas's efforts to distance himself from him. If not political expediency, then how to explain the fact that only when the propriety of his relationship with Wright was questioned did Obama feel the compulsion to disavow Wright's more outrageous contentions while never actually disowning Wright? A coincidence? Can anyone believe that if Rev. Wright's opinions had not been publicized by the media and Obama himself placed in the position of defending the indefensible or repudiating it, that Obama would ever of his own volition have labelled Wright's beliefs "divisive and destructive?"
If he had done so on his own it would be possible to contend that moral outrage, not just political opportunism, played a part in his decision. But Obama either agreed with or disregarded the content in Wright's sermons, served to him 52 times a year for 15 years. Did he manage to miss all 780 sermons preached to the congregants of Trinity United during all that time? All of Rev. Wright's sermons contain poisonous weeds and all are alike incendiary and offensive. A little bit will certainly do you; but even the great heapfuls that Obama was fed over 15 years were not enough for him to develop a distaste for the racist mythology and visceral anti-Americanism which are its permanent themes. Did Obama dismiss it all as bombastic rhetoric? If so, then how did Wright become his mentor? Do honest men blindly follow the preaching of demagogues? Or did Obama agree with Wright's peculiar take on religion, history and politics? That would seem a logical conclusion given the influence which Obama himself acknowledged Wright had exerted over him.
Or is Obama himself Rev. Wright's "crop?" Or is he Wright's "cross?" Obviously, Obama is the best thing that could have happened to Wright. No cross to him but a most bountiful harvest. Thanks to Obama Wright has become a national figure. Don't fool yourself that notoriety is all that he has reaped. He has his legions of admirers in the black community just like Minister Farrakhan, Wright's own "mentor." Not a small minority of blacks actually believe that Obama has betrayed Wright and hence the black community to ingratiate himself to the white establishment. They'll still vote for him, of course, but they believe that in the contest between Wright and Obama it is the reverend who has the "moral" high ground. It would not be surprising if Rev. Wright got a multi-million dollar book contract to publish his execrable sermons. Not even Billy Graham did that well and he was much more popular; nor Archbishop Sheen, who was an intellectual giant compared to both of them.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright was not joking when he said that he might be picked to run as Obama's vice-president. In fact, he is already running as his "vice president." The two are now inseparable in the public consciousness; no "vice president" in history is as completely identified with the presidential contender as Wright is with Obama. Wright has certainly reaped quite a bonanza from the seeds he planted in his surrogate son. The son also got more than he bargained for. But as the reverend said, "Our choices have consequences, our behaviors have consequences."
[Yes, another post on Obama. While his ship is sinking, we insist on documenting that fact].
Barack Obama has been very reluctant to gather the crops that he has sown. The reverend is right, for once, that our choices and behaviors have consequences. When Obama joined Wright's congregation, he made a choice and now he is dealing with the consequences of that choice. For 15 years he sat first alone and then with his family imbibing his religion and forming his social conscience under the tutelage of his minister. Obama has called Wright his greatest teacher because he led him to Christ. Now, there are many ways to reach Christ and not all are straight; but surely Obama chose for himself one of the crookedest, and if it led him to Christ then indeed it was a miracle. Wright's teaching could well have led him in another direction as it apparently has led the minister himself.
Wright occupied in Obama's moral cosmology a central place, not the "tangential" one which he now attributes to him. Wright is correct to question the sincerity of Obamas's efforts to distance himself from him. If not political expediency, then how to explain the fact that only when the propriety of his relationship with Wright was questioned did Obama feel the compulsion to disavow Wright's more outrageous contentions while never actually disowning Wright? A coincidence? Can anyone believe that if Rev. Wright's opinions had not been publicized by the media and Obama himself placed in the position of defending the indefensible or repudiating it, that Obama would ever of his own volition have labelled Wright's beliefs "divisive and destructive?"
If he had done so on his own it would be possible to contend that moral outrage, not just political opportunism, played a part in his decision. But Obama either agreed with or disregarded the content in Wright's sermons, served to him 52 times a year for 15 years. Did he manage to miss all 780 sermons preached to the congregants of Trinity United during all that time? All of Rev. Wright's sermons contain poisonous weeds and all are alike incendiary and offensive. A little bit will certainly do you; but even the great heapfuls that Obama was fed over 15 years were not enough for him to develop a distaste for the racist mythology and visceral anti-Americanism which are its permanent themes. Did Obama dismiss it all as bombastic rhetoric? If so, then how did Wright become his mentor? Do honest men blindly follow the preaching of demagogues? Or did Obama agree with Wright's peculiar take on religion, history and politics? That would seem a logical conclusion given the influence which Obama himself acknowledged Wright had exerted over him.
Or is Obama himself Rev. Wright's "crop?" Or is he Wright's "cross?" Obviously, Obama is the best thing that could have happened to Wright. No cross to him but a most bountiful harvest. Thanks to Obama Wright has become a national figure. Don't fool yourself that notoriety is all that he has reaped. He has his legions of admirers in the black community just like Minister Farrakhan, Wright's own "mentor." Not a small minority of blacks actually believe that Obama has betrayed Wright and hence the black community to ingratiate himself to the white establishment. They'll still vote for him, of course, but they believe that in the contest between Wright and Obama it is the reverend who has the "moral" high ground. It would not be surprising if Rev. Wright got a multi-million dollar book contract to publish his execrable sermons. Not even Billy Graham did that well and he was much more popular; nor Archbishop Sheen, who was an intellectual giant compared to both of them.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright was not joking when he said that he might be picked to run as Obama's vice-president. In fact, he is already running as his "vice president." The two are now inseparable in the public consciousness; no "vice president" in history is as completely identified with the presidential contender as Wright is with Obama. Wright has certainly reaped quite a bonanza from the seeds he planted in his surrogate son. The son also got more than he bargained for. But as the reverend said, "Our choices have consequences, our behaviors have consequences."
[Yes, another post on Obama. While his ship is sinking, we insist on documenting that fact].
Word(s) of the Day
obamafy: To lose an election because one has failed, or is perceived to have failed, to disassociate himself in a timely or sufficient manner from a racist religious figure and former mentor
obamanitis: a chronic condition whose sufferers believe that they can fool all of the people all of the time
obamanitis: a chronic condition whose sufferers believe that they can fool all of the people all of the time
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Nightly Tally
RCAB = 634
Babalú = 39
Commenters are the committed readers. Their interest is real and substantial, not casual and transitory. Commenters are the bulwark of every blog, the mainstay, the cornerstone. Without them there would be no feedback , and without feedback the posts would be static. Most visitors to almost all blogs stumble there by accident, or are dropped there by Google. They stay only long enough to ascertain whether the information contained there might be useful in writing a school paper or settling a question. Chances are that whether they found the blog useful or no they will never return there, because the motivation that brought them there in the first place has lapsed and it is of no interest to them in any other context. Perhaps 95% of googlers fall into this opportunistic category. Those readers, incidentally, constitute most of Babalú's readers. This is easily discernable by the paucity of comments left there: passersby usually have very little to say. Babalú is a dying blog petrified in its morbidity while RCAB is instinct with life and activity, a living and vibrant organism.
What distinguishes one blog from the other?
First and foremost, freedom.
Those with a genuine interest in Cuba, who visit Cuba-themed blogs to nurture that interest and share their own views, can have their say here but not at Babalú.
So long as Babalú continues to censor and blackball these readers, our target audience, they will continue to boycott it.
Barack Obama Refuses to Denounce Rev. Wright
In his "Speech on Race" (which he now always calls his "Philadelphia Speech"), Barack Obama said that he would no more disown Rev. Jeremiah Wright than he would disown his 85-year-old white grandmother, and then proceeded to denounce his grandmother as a bigot comparable to Wright, which both diminishes Wright's bigotry by a mile and elevates his grandmother's exponentially. After all, his poor grandmother's only "sin" is that she is afraid of black youths who follow her from the supermarket. I think if white youths were following her home she would probably be afraid too. But no matter, grandma can sleep save tonight. The grandson that she raised when his parents abandoned him did not disown her yesterday. Nor did Obama disown Reverend Wright.
Once again, Barack Obama has denounced Wright's comments, but not the man. In fact, he makes this distinction clear himself: "I've already denounced [Wright's] comments that had appeared in previous sermons." Denounced the comments, that is, not the sermons, much less the reverend. In fact, when Obama delivered his Speech on Race, in Philadelphia, he admits that he "gave [Wright] the benefit of the doubt." So, as late as a month ago, Obama admits that he still "had doubts" that Wright's comments were "divisive and destructive." It is only now that Wright has challenged his own honesty and suggested that any criticisms which Obama has made of him were motivated solely by political expediency does Obama feel compelled to label Wrights comments as "destructive." "Destructive" to whom? Well, to Obama.
Even now, after Wright's most recent remarks, Obama feels the compulsion to praise him: "He's done enormous good in the church, he's built a wonderful congregation." That was at the start of his "denunciation." At the end he had this to say: "I continue to believe that Rev. Wright has been a leader of the South Side [of Chicago]. I think that the church he built is outstanding. I think he has preached in the past some wonderful sermons. He provided, you know, valuable contributions to my family."
Denunciation should be made of firmer stuff.
Obama is even willing to admit the possibility that Wright may have acted without malice in his "performance." Although he acknowledges that "there has been great damage," Obama stills believes that "it may have been unintentional on his part."
In other words, the man may be personally blameless. Still.
Then who's to blame?
The media (well, that's refreshing, at least).
Why?
Because they aired (or "triggered," as he puts it) "the initial round of sound bites" which were "a simplification of who [Wright] was, a caricature of who he was..." Well, it is true that a mere sound bite cannot convey the whole of Wright's perverse world view. But is that the same as "caricaturing" him. With his own words? Obviously, in Obama's opinion, Wright was a man done wrong by the media until the day when he actually questioned Obama's veracity. On that day, Obama says, Wright "caricatured himself." Still, though, Obama says that "made [him] angry, but also made [him] sad." Like a disappointed but still dutiful son, Obama blames Wright "for not showing enough concern for [him]." It is that anguish, more than anything else, that was on display in Obama's speech yesterday. How could Wright have done such a thing to him?
Obama claims not to have known about Wright's allegation that the U.S. government created AIDS to destroy the black community (gay men, too perhaps?) and other "divisive and destructive comments" which the reverend has made over the years. Obama has known Wright personally for 20 years and sat in the pew of his church for 15. He even used the title of one of Wright's sermons as the title for his own autobiography. Hard to think of a greater homage to one's mentor, pastor and surrogate father than to use the title of one of his sermons to define his own life and mission, though, now, Obama claims that Wright "does not speak for him." He obviously spoke to him and for him in the past when no one was challenging Wright's remarks or using them against him (Obama).
Once again, Barack Obama has denounced Wright's comments, but not the man. In fact, he makes this distinction clear himself: "I've already denounced [Wright's] comments that had appeared in previous sermons." Denounced the comments, that is, not the sermons, much less the reverend. In fact, when Obama delivered his Speech on Race, in Philadelphia, he admits that he "gave [Wright] the benefit of the doubt." So, as late as a month ago, Obama admits that he still "had doubts" that Wright's comments were "divisive and destructive." It is only now that Wright has challenged his own honesty and suggested that any criticisms which Obama has made of him were motivated solely by political expediency does Obama feel compelled to label Wrights comments as "destructive." "Destructive" to whom? Well, to Obama.
Even now, after Wright's most recent remarks, Obama feels the compulsion to praise him: "He's done enormous good in the church, he's built a wonderful congregation." That was at the start of his "denunciation." At the end he had this to say: "I continue to believe that Rev. Wright has been a leader of the South Side [of Chicago]. I think that the church he built is outstanding. I think he has preached in the past some wonderful sermons. He provided, you know, valuable contributions to my family."
Denunciation should be made of firmer stuff.
Obama is even willing to admit the possibility that Wright may have acted without malice in his "performance." Although he acknowledges that "there has been great damage," Obama stills believes that "it may have been unintentional on his part."
In other words, the man may be personally blameless. Still.
Then who's to blame?
The media (well, that's refreshing, at least).
Why?
Because they aired (or "triggered," as he puts it) "the initial round of sound bites" which were "a simplification of who [Wright] was, a caricature of who he was..." Well, it is true that a mere sound bite cannot convey the whole of Wright's perverse world view. But is that the same as "caricaturing" him. With his own words? Obviously, in Obama's opinion, Wright was a man done wrong by the media until the day when he actually questioned Obama's veracity. On that day, Obama says, Wright "caricatured himself." Still, though, Obama says that "made [him] angry, but also made [him] sad." Like a disappointed but still dutiful son, Obama blames Wright "for not showing enough concern for [him]." It is that anguish, more than anything else, that was on display in Obama's speech yesterday. How could Wright have done such a thing to him?
Obama claims not to have known about Wright's allegation that the U.S. government created AIDS to destroy the black community (gay men, too perhaps?) and other "divisive and destructive comments" which the reverend has made over the years. Obama has known Wright personally for 20 years and sat in the pew of his church for 15. He even used the title of one of Wright's sermons as the title for his own autobiography. Hard to think of a greater homage to one's mentor, pastor and surrogate father than to use the title of one of his sermons to define his own life and mission, though, now, Obama claims that Wright "does not speak for him." He obviously spoke to him and for him in the past when no one was challenging Wright's remarks or using them against him (Obama).
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Promise of Barack Obama
Nothing about Barack Obama is unmoderated. It is not surprising, therefore, that he has declined Hillary Clinton's challenge to debate in an unmoderated (and unscripted) format. Obama fears less to be perceived as a coward than to be exposed as a sham. There is no difference between Al Sharpton and Barack Obama except that Sharpton has been knocked-about and nearly killed for his opportunism whereas Obama has reaped prize after unearned prize.
Obama is an armchair revolutionary who harbors all the hates and resentments of those on the front lines of the racial divide but has been immured all his life from the effects of racism. His entire career thus far (such as it is) has been built on exploiting the exploited, siphoning their suffering to run his political juggernaut. One might say that in this he is no different from any other liberal of our times. No different, let us say, from Hillary Clinton.
But there is a difference: the next phase of his career will be spent exploiting the "exploiters," that is, those who favor his mother's side of the family. It is thus that he affirms his own "victimhood" and validates his own identity. It worked, on a smaller canvas, for his mentor and surrogate father figure, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, incidentally, despite the mock African garb, is practically white, or, more precisely, black by choice.
Not even Obama's 85-year old white grandmother, who raised him after both his father and mother abandoned him, is exempt from his anger at whites, which is no different from Wright's except that Obama conceals it in meaningless rhetoric while Wright uses all his rhetorical tropes to highlight it. Still, in his speech on race, Obama publicly chastised his own grandmother as a bigot while asserting that he can still love his grandmother even if she is one; the implication being, of course, that he can love and forgive all whites for being bigots and terribly wronging him and his people. Yet, if Obama can regard his own white grandmother as a racist and publicly chastise her as such before the world — a woman who has given the most absolute proof that she is in fact not one — how must he feel about other whites who did not raise him?
For Obama as for Wright racism is the "original sin" of white Americans. Nothing can wash that "sin" out except, perhaps, an infusion of black blood. It appears to have done the trick for Obama himself, who on his mother's side is related to Jefferson Davis.
Quite apart from Obama's socialism, which Hillary shares to a lesser extent, and his inexperience, which Hillary also shares but which, in her case, is supplemented by her husband's (ominous) experience, the biggest difference between Obama and Clinton is that as president Hillary would not pick at the scars of racism until they become new festering wounds.
It is ironic that many Americans both black and white mistakingly believe that the election of Obama will signify the final reckoning with their history and the purification of the American ideal. In fact, the long settled questions of the American Civil War will be revisited and unsettled, and the real progress that has been made since will be threatened if not undone, if Barack Obama is elected president. Obama is the black George Wallace, only smarter and a better actor and hence even more dangerous.
Barack Obama: The Future Is the Past
The Truth About Barack Obama Finally Revealed
Obama is an armchair revolutionary who harbors all the hates and resentments of those on the front lines of the racial divide but has been immured all his life from the effects of racism. His entire career thus far (such as it is) has been built on exploiting the exploited, siphoning their suffering to run his political juggernaut. One might say that in this he is no different from any other liberal of our times. No different, let us say, from Hillary Clinton.
But there is a difference: the next phase of his career will be spent exploiting the "exploiters," that is, those who favor his mother's side of the family. It is thus that he affirms his own "victimhood" and validates his own identity. It worked, on a smaller canvas, for his mentor and surrogate father figure, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, incidentally, despite the mock African garb, is practically white, or, more precisely, black by choice.
Not even Obama's 85-year old white grandmother, who raised him after both his father and mother abandoned him, is exempt from his anger at whites, which is no different from Wright's except that Obama conceals it in meaningless rhetoric while Wright uses all his rhetorical tropes to highlight it. Still, in his speech on race, Obama publicly chastised his own grandmother as a bigot while asserting that he can still love his grandmother even if she is one; the implication being, of course, that he can love and forgive all whites for being bigots and terribly wronging him and his people. Yet, if Obama can regard his own white grandmother as a racist and publicly chastise her as such before the world — a woman who has given the most absolute proof that she is in fact not one — how must he feel about other whites who did not raise him?
For Obama as for Wright racism is the "original sin" of white Americans. Nothing can wash that "sin" out except, perhaps, an infusion of black blood. It appears to have done the trick for Obama himself, who on his mother's side is related to Jefferson Davis.
Quite apart from Obama's socialism, which Hillary shares to a lesser extent, and his inexperience, which Hillary also shares but which, in her case, is supplemented by her husband's (ominous) experience, the biggest difference between Obama and Clinton is that as president Hillary would not pick at the scars of racism until they become new festering wounds.
It is ironic that many Americans both black and white mistakingly believe that the election of Obama will signify the final reckoning with their history and the purification of the American ideal. In fact, the long settled questions of the American Civil War will be revisited and unsettled, and the real progress that has been made since will be threatened if not undone, if Barack Obama is elected president. Obama is the black George Wallace, only smarter and a better actor and hence even more dangerous.
Barack Obama: The Future Is the Past
The Truth About Barack Obama Finally Revealed
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Joe Papp's Cuban Odyssey
The temptation was really great to title this post "Romeo and Yuliet," but I disdain the facile (cursi in Spanish), even if, as in this case, it's a pretty good snapshot of reality. Like the characters in Shakepeare's play, Joe Papp and Yuliet Rodríguez's story is simple though not on that account less poignant: an American young man falls in love with a Cuban girl; but their love is thwarted not by their parents but by the "Father of All Cubans," who is not in the least adverse to allowing the sale of "his" children to old depraved men like himself in order to promote tourism to his floating plantation, but not in the least open to allowing love to run its normal course when it involves one of his slaves and an "abolitionist devil" from up North. Yes, Fidel Castro can be quite possessive about certain slaves, especially his most prized ones, the athletes who compete for his greater glory and represent in themselves his most successful experiment in social engineering.
Cuban athletes are champions. Fidel's cows never were. Cows were always his passion, not people. He would have preferred to create a "New Cow" than a "New Man." But the only "new cow" that he ever managed to bioengineer, the immortal Ubre Blanca, was barren. The "New Man" was the consolation prize. The exemplars of these "New Men" and "New Women" are his stable of athletes. Yuliet Rodríguez was one, Cuba's 12-time cycling champion. She was not expected to fall in love with a young American cyclist and want to leave Castro's "Socialist Paradise," but she did.
Joe and Yuliet met at a cycling event in Havana in 2001. They pursued their courtship in a dozen countries, wherever Yuliet travelled abroad to represent Cuba at cycling meets. Everywhere that she went she tried to defect without much success, or, rather, with tragic results. From Russia, she tried unsuccessfully to reach Italy, where Joe lay injured in hospital after a bicycle crash. On a return flight home from Spain, after another competition, she tried to defect during a pitstop in Mexico and was offered the option of returning to Cuba or being sent to Venezuela. In Venezuela, she went into hiding. Joe and Yuliet had already married in 2004 but it did not avail Yuliet much with U.S. authorities, who did nothing to expedite the visa of an American citizen's wife. Fearing that Yuliet would soon be captured and deported to Cuba, Joe spent his last dime trying to get her smuggled to the U.S. from Venezuela. He went to Kennedy Airport to wait for her but she never appeared. Only later did he learn that she had been apprehended by Venezuelan authorities and summarily deported to Cuba, where, of course, she immediately became persona non grata, without even the miserable stipend that she had received as an athlete from the regime.
Yuliet was pregnant and close to giving birth. Joe sent several thousand dollars to Cuba so that she would have money to subsist and be able to pay for the delivery, or, to be more precise, so that she could bribe the doctors so that her baby wouldn't be aborted without her knowledge, as is routinely the case in Cuba with difficult deliveries, as hers promised to be. The money was stolen by the person who was entrusted to take it to Cuba. Yuliet literally spent her final trimester in a state of near starvation. The baby -- this little American citizen, Joe Papp Jr. -- was born prematurely by Caesarian section in Havana. Miraculously (because there is a God who does not always turn his back on the innocent), the baby survived. Yuliet is still waiting to be reunited with her husband and Joe Sr. to meet his son.
Needless to say, Joe's experiences with the Castro regime have given him a perspective on it that no other American enjoys and few Cuban exiles. And he has not remained quiet. Perhaps because he's an American and can't easily be silenced. He has done everything in his power to publicize his Yuliet's plight. Others may perhaps have advised caution, as this case might have been easier to "solve" without publicity. But I think Joe was right. The only protection that Yuliet enjoys is that she is the wife of a U.S. citizen and his son that he is an American citizen. To make that fact known as widely as possible is Joe's only defense against the kidnappers of his wife and son. In this he has been greatly assisted by the fact that he is a gifted writer and his own best advocate. He has chosen, however, to be something more: an advocate for the freedom of the entire Cuban people. His identification with our cause and passion for Cuba is such that he reminds me of Henry Reeve. Those acquainted with Reeve's history know that it is impossible to praise Papp more.
His blog I also recommend in the highest terms. It is there where you can discover for yourself his love for Cuba and the Cuban people and the vast resources of his intellect and his heart. Some day, perhaps, he will hang up his bicycle and give a workout to his hands on the keyboard as strenuous as he is wont to give his legs on the peddles.
I know that there are some who think I don't like Americans, but really it is the "Ugly American" that I dislike. The "Ugly American" is not the prototypical American by any means. Sadly, Cuba has suffered greatly and suffers still by the actions of a few "Ugly Americans." Joe and other Americans like him compensate for their crimes and represent a more hopeful epoch in Cuban-American relations which will dawn once Cuba is free.
Read more about Yuliet in Joe's blog, Pappillon:
http://joepapp.blogspot.com/search?q=Yuliet
Cuban athletes are champions. Fidel's cows never were. Cows were always his passion, not people. He would have preferred to create a "New Cow" than a "New Man." But the only "new cow" that he ever managed to bioengineer, the immortal Ubre Blanca, was barren. The "New Man" was the consolation prize. The exemplars of these "New Men" and "New Women" are his stable of athletes. Yuliet Rodríguez was one, Cuba's 12-time cycling champion. She was not expected to fall in love with a young American cyclist and want to leave Castro's "Socialist Paradise," but she did.
Joe and Yuliet met at a cycling event in Havana in 2001. They pursued their courtship in a dozen countries, wherever Yuliet travelled abroad to represent Cuba at cycling meets. Everywhere that she went she tried to defect without much success, or, rather, with tragic results. From Russia, she tried unsuccessfully to reach Italy, where Joe lay injured in hospital after a bicycle crash. On a return flight home from Spain, after another competition, she tried to defect during a pitstop in Mexico and was offered the option of returning to Cuba or being sent to Venezuela. In Venezuela, she went into hiding. Joe and Yuliet had already married in 2004 but it did not avail Yuliet much with U.S. authorities, who did nothing to expedite the visa of an American citizen's wife. Fearing that Yuliet would soon be captured and deported to Cuba, Joe spent his last dime trying to get her smuggled to the U.S. from Venezuela. He went to Kennedy Airport to wait for her but she never appeared. Only later did he learn that she had been apprehended by Venezuelan authorities and summarily deported to Cuba, where, of course, she immediately became persona non grata, without even the miserable stipend that she had received as an athlete from the regime.
Yuliet was pregnant and close to giving birth. Joe sent several thousand dollars to Cuba so that she would have money to subsist and be able to pay for the delivery, or, to be more precise, so that she could bribe the doctors so that her baby wouldn't be aborted without her knowledge, as is routinely the case in Cuba with difficult deliveries, as hers promised to be. The money was stolen by the person who was entrusted to take it to Cuba. Yuliet literally spent her final trimester in a state of near starvation. The baby -- this little American citizen, Joe Papp Jr. -- was born prematurely by Caesarian section in Havana. Miraculously (because there is a God who does not always turn his back on the innocent), the baby survived. Yuliet is still waiting to be reunited with her husband and Joe Sr. to meet his son.
Needless to say, Joe's experiences with the Castro regime have given him a perspective on it that no other American enjoys and few Cuban exiles. And he has not remained quiet. Perhaps because he's an American and can't easily be silenced. He has done everything in his power to publicize his Yuliet's plight. Others may perhaps have advised caution, as this case might have been easier to "solve" without publicity. But I think Joe was right. The only protection that Yuliet enjoys is that she is the wife of a U.S. citizen and his son that he is an American citizen. To make that fact known as widely as possible is Joe's only defense against the kidnappers of his wife and son. In this he has been greatly assisted by the fact that he is a gifted writer and his own best advocate. He has chosen, however, to be something more: an advocate for the freedom of the entire Cuban people. His identification with our cause and passion for Cuba is such that he reminds me of Henry Reeve. Those acquainted with Reeve's history know that it is impossible to praise Papp more.
His blog I also recommend in the highest terms. It is there where you can discover for yourself his love for Cuba and the Cuban people and the vast resources of his intellect and his heart. Some day, perhaps, he will hang up his bicycle and give a workout to his hands on the keyboard as strenuous as he is wont to give his legs on the peddles.
I know that there are some who think I don't like Americans, but really it is the "Ugly American" that I dislike. The "Ugly American" is not the prototypical American by any means. Sadly, Cuba has suffered greatly and suffers still by the actions of a few "Ugly Americans." Joe and other Americans like him compensate for their crimes and represent a more hopeful epoch in Cuban-American relations which will dawn once Cuba is free.
Read more about Yuliet in Joe's blog, Pappillon:
http://joepapp.blogspot.com/search?q=Yuliet
Notable & Naive: No, Monica, We Are All "Cuban Nationals"
"Some of the artists [at the exhibit] are exiles, others are nationals." -- Monica, "Unbroken Ties: Dialogues in Cuban Art," Babalú, April 25, 2008
Babalú's youngest contributing writer, Monica, is always a source of amusement. Young people never draw my anger. I am glad that they have any interest in Cuba, let alone devote any part of their lives to her behalf. What if they do use the spurious names that Castro has given to Cuba's provinces? The fact that Cuba is a tabula rasa to them, at best known second-hand, covers a lot of territory, or, rather, excuses any number of errors that they might commit in an honest effort to understand our country. Cuba is, of course, their country, too.
The Constitution of 1940, still Cuba's only de jure fundamental law, grants the children of Cuban parents citizenship, and those children, having claimed Cuban citizenship, can pass it on to their foreign-born children, and so, unto all future generations born in exile. Which is to say, that not only the children of Cubans are Cubans, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren to the last generation are Cubans too. This should be a comfort to all of us: Fidel Castro has not been able to rob us of our nationality nor our descendents of their patrimony (or matrimony, since under the 1940 Constitution the children of Cuban mothers born outside the national territory enjoy the same citizenship rights as the children of Cuban fathers, which was a rare concession for those patriarchal times).
That much said, and in the spirit of instruction rather than chastisement, let me say that Monica has made the biggest "boo boo" in Babalú's history (as Henry once dubbed his own monumental gaffes). There is no distinction between Cuban exiles and Cuban nationals. Cuban exiles are Cuban nationals no less than Cubans who reside on the island. If the art exhibit which Monica reviews has as its object to highlight the "unbroken ties" that bind us, then that is the firmest tie of all: our shared nationality.
I oppose alike Cubans in exile that do not regard Cubans on the island as "real Cubans" and Cubans on the island that refuse to see exiled Cubans as "real Cubans."
We are one people. Any deviation from that concept is treason.
Babalú's youngest contributing writer, Monica, is always a source of amusement. Young people never draw my anger. I am glad that they have any interest in Cuba, let alone devote any part of their lives to her behalf. What if they do use the spurious names that Castro has given to Cuba's provinces? The fact that Cuba is a tabula rasa to them, at best known second-hand, covers a lot of territory, or, rather, excuses any number of errors that they might commit in an honest effort to understand our country. Cuba is, of course, their country, too.
The Constitution of 1940, still Cuba's only de jure fundamental law, grants the children of Cuban parents citizenship, and those children, having claimed Cuban citizenship, can pass it on to their foreign-born children, and so, unto all future generations born in exile. Which is to say, that not only the children of Cubans are Cubans, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren to the last generation are Cubans too. This should be a comfort to all of us: Fidel Castro has not been able to rob us of our nationality nor our descendents of their patrimony (or matrimony, since under the 1940 Constitution the children of Cuban mothers born outside the national territory enjoy the same citizenship rights as the children of Cuban fathers, which was a rare concession for those patriarchal times).
That much said, and in the spirit of instruction rather than chastisement, let me say that Monica has made the biggest "boo boo" in Babalú's history (as Henry once dubbed his own monumental gaffes). There is no distinction between Cuban exiles and Cuban nationals. Cuban exiles are Cuban nationals no less than Cubans who reside on the island. If the art exhibit which Monica reviews has as its object to highlight the "unbroken ties" that bind us, then that is the firmest tie of all: our shared nationality.
I oppose alike Cubans in exile that do not regard Cubans on the island as "real Cubans" and Cubans on the island that refuse to see exiled Cubans as "real Cubans."
We are one people. Any deviation from that concept is treason.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Jaime Cardinal Ortega: The "Dorian Gray" of Cuba
From the Catholic News Agency:
Church in Cuba Hopes for Greater Government Cooperation, says Cardinal Ortega
Havana, Apr 23, 2008 / 03:18 pm (CNA).- The Archbishop of Havana, Cardinal Jaime Ortega, said relations between the Church and the Communist government have improved in recent times, but the hope is that there will be more openness with regards to access to the media and education.
In an interview with the magazine Temas, Cardinal Rivera [sic] said the country is living “a very special” moment, as “a period of much reflection and debate (about life in Cuba) has begun and is very noticeable in the people, and sometimes in the electronic media, although not always.” “This is an interesting moment and we are looking on with hope,” he said.
Cardinal Ortega said the good relations with the government “could improve with greater openness for the Church.” He specifically referred to the media and noted that while the bishops do have access to local radio stations, in the future they hope to have a program that is broadcast on a more regular basis, whether weekly or monthly.
He also expressed hope that the Church’s publications could be circulated throughout the country in accord with established law.
Regarding education, Cardinal Ortega admitted that there is less of a chance of the Church gaining greater control over the administration of Catholic schools than for the Church to have greater access to the media.
The cardinal said that requests by the bishops today are given greater consideration than before, such as “requests for missionaries or religious to come to Cuba for pastoral work, which are obtained today with relative ease.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12440
Cardinal Jaime Ortega, archbishop of Havana, is rarely mentioned in the Catholic press in the U.S. Of course, there is very little reason to mention him and many reasons to ignore him. We were surprised, then, when the Catholic News Agency devoted a few brief paragraphs to the indescript prelate.
The title really says it all: the Cardinal expects greater "government" cooperation. That makes him the active agent when he has never been the active agent. It is not the Castro regime which will offer greater cooperation to the Cardinal, but the Cuban Church which will become even more cooperative with the regime. Perpetual capitulation is its normal mode. The concept of a church militant is completely alien to it. The Cuban Church is, rather, a church complicitous. As such it fears the future more than it fears the present. It is completely accommodated to the present. The future, when it will called to account for its betrayal of the Cuban people, and when the magnitude of that betrayal becomes known in all its horrific dimensions, is something that hierarchs like Cardinal Ortega should like to postpone as long as they can, indefinitely if possible. That is, atheistic communism is preferable to them than democracy and freedom of religion. In the shadow of tyranny, the Cardinal can continue to live his hedonistic lifestyle. Exposed to the light of a free press and not protected by the mechanism of tyranny, he would wither like the portrait of Dorian Grey.
The first thing to notice in the article is that the reporter immediately forgets the Cuban Cardinal's name. He refers to him as "Rivera." This, as we have already explained, is entirely understandable. I wish it were as easy for me to forget his name. The official history of the Universal Church will certainly have no place in it for him and even the annals of the Cuban Church will try to ignore him. But, of course, such attempts to erase history will be in vain while there are still millions of witnesses to it.
So this is an "interesting moment" and the Cardinal is looking forward "with hope (read horror)" to future developments. As regards the Church, it is "better relations with the government [sic]" which holds the key to "greater openness for the Church." Not freedom for the Cuban people, God forbid, but more space for the Church to preach resignation to tyranny to the Cuban people.
Specifically, the Cardinal wants greater access to the media. Not to seem ungrateful, he points out that "the bishops do have access to local radio stations" (that is, they can be invited to appear on the propaganda shows); but this is not enough for Ortega, "in the future [he] hopes to have a program that is broadcast on a more regular basis, whether weekly or monthly." Isn't that just precious! On a "more or less regular basis" and "whether weekly or monthly." 12 days out of the 365 would satisfy this very-easy-to-please cardinal. Before the Revolution, the Catholic Church owned its own radio station in Cuba, one of the island's most powerful (closed and confiscated by Castro). Now, it would be content with 30 (censored) minutes every month.
And forget about the return of Catholic education to Cuba. Such an idea is thoroughly alien to the Cardinal, as alien, indeed, as it it to the regime. Incidentally, the Catholic News Agency does not know, and certainly got no inkling from the Cardinal's interview, that there are presently no Catholic schools in Cuba. In fact, can Cardinal Ortega actually be obscuring that fact himself when he is quoted as "admitt[ing] that there is less of a chance of the Church gaining greater control over the administration of Catholic schools than for the Church to have greater access to the media." What "Catholic schools?" Empirically, the Cardinal's statement is true, however. The Cuban Church does indeed have a lesser possibility of regaining "administration" over its confiscated schools than it does of getting a monthly 30-minutes on state-controlled radio.
Church in Cuba Hopes for Greater Government Cooperation, says Cardinal Ortega
Havana, Apr 23, 2008 / 03:18 pm (CNA).- The Archbishop of Havana, Cardinal Jaime Ortega, said relations between the Church and the Communist government have improved in recent times, but the hope is that there will be more openness with regards to access to the media and education.
In an interview with the magazine Temas, Cardinal Rivera [sic] said the country is living “a very special” moment, as “a period of much reflection and debate (about life in Cuba) has begun and is very noticeable in the people, and sometimes in the electronic media, although not always.” “This is an interesting moment and we are looking on with hope,” he said.
Cardinal Ortega said the good relations with the government “could improve with greater openness for the Church.” He specifically referred to the media and noted that while the bishops do have access to local radio stations, in the future they hope to have a program that is broadcast on a more regular basis, whether weekly or monthly.
He also expressed hope that the Church’s publications could be circulated throughout the country in accord with established law.
Regarding education, Cardinal Ortega admitted that there is less of a chance of the Church gaining greater control over the administration of Catholic schools than for the Church to have greater access to the media.
The cardinal said that requests by the bishops today are given greater consideration than before, such as “requests for missionaries or religious to come to Cuba for pastoral work, which are obtained today with relative ease.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12440
Cardinal Jaime Ortega, archbishop of Havana, is rarely mentioned in the Catholic press in the U.S. Of course, there is very little reason to mention him and many reasons to ignore him. We were surprised, then, when the Catholic News Agency devoted a few brief paragraphs to the indescript prelate.
The title really says it all: the Cardinal expects greater "government" cooperation. That makes him the active agent when he has never been the active agent. It is not the Castro regime which will offer greater cooperation to the Cardinal, but the Cuban Church which will become even more cooperative with the regime. Perpetual capitulation is its normal mode. The concept of a church militant is completely alien to it. The Cuban Church is, rather, a church complicitous. As such it fears the future more than it fears the present. It is completely accommodated to the present. The future, when it will called to account for its betrayal of the Cuban people, and when the magnitude of that betrayal becomes known in all its horrific dimensions, is something that hierarchs like Cardinal Ortega should like to postpone as long as they can, indefinitely if possible. That is, atheistic communism is preferable to them than democracy and freedom of religion. In the shadow of tyranny, the Cardinal can continue to live his hedonistic lifestyle. Exposed to the light of a free press and not protected by the mechanism of tyranny, he would wither like the portrait of Dorian Grey.
The first thing to notice in the article is that the reporter immediately forgets the Cuban Cardinal's name. He refers to him as "Rivera." This, as we have already explained, is entirely understandable. I wish it were as easy for me to forget his name. The official history of the Universal Church will certainly have no place in it for him and even the annals of the Cuban Church will try to ignore him. But, of course, such attempts to erase history will be in vain while there are still millions of witnesses to it.
So this is an "interesting moment" and the Cardinal is looking forward "with hope (read horror)" to future developments. As regards the Church, it is "better relations with the government [sic]" which holds the key to "greater openness for the Church." Not freedom for the Cuban people, God forbid, but more space for the Church to preach resignation to tyranny to the Cuban people.
Specifically, the Cardinal wants greater access to the media. Not to seem ungrateful, he points out that "the bishops do have access to local radio stations" (that is, they can be invited to appear on the propaganda shows); but this is not enough for Ortega, "in the future [he] hopes to have a program that is broadcast on a more regular basis, whether weekly or monthly." Isn't that just precious! On a "more or less regular basis" and "whether weekly or monthly." 12 days out of the 365 would satisfy this very-easy-to-please cardinal. Before the Revolution, the Catholic Church owned its own radio station in Cuba, one of the island's most powerful (closed and confiscated by Castro). Now, it would be content with 30 (censored) minutes every month.
And forget about the return of Catholic education to Cuba. Such an idea is thoroughly alien to the Cardinal, as alien, indeed, as it it to the regime. Incidentally, the Catholic News Agency does not know, and certainly got no inkling from the Cardinal's interview, that there are presently no Catholic schools in Cuba. In fact, can Cardinal Ortega actually be obscuring that fact himself when he is quoted as "admitt[ing] that there is less of a chance of the Church gaining greater control over the administration of Catholic schools than for the Church to have greater access to the media." What "Catholic schools?" Empirically, the Cardinal's statement is true, however. The Cuban Church does indeed have a lesser possibility of regaining "administration" over its confiscated schools than it does of getting a monthly 30-minutes on state-controlled radio.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Notable & Hypocritical: Two Birds of a Feather that Don't Fly Together
"Here's Charles Rangel saying it's unconstitutional for the President and the State Department to list[en] to Cuban-Americans. This is what pisses me off about these disingenuous jerks. They are pissed simply because we use the institutions of democracy, namely the vote, to influence policy. If that's crime, then we are guilty. -- Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Joe García's Fundraising Buddy," Babalu, April 23, 2008
The "institutions of democracy?"
How about the forms of democracy?
When are those going to be honored at Babalú?
I can think of no better illustration of the hypocrisy, unctuousness, bullying, absolutism and visceral disdain for not only the practice of democracy but for the lives and future of those who are not free than Congressman Charlie Rangel. His desire that Cubans should always starve under Communism and Babalú's desire that Cubans should be starved out of Communism exhibit the same contempt for the Cuban people.
Rangel sees Cubans as the guinea pigs in his Marxist utopia; and the Babalunians as rats in a Pavlovian maze that can be trained by holding out and withholding grains of food. Both presuppose that Cubans exist solely for the purpose of being agents for their worst intentions.
In fact, in the moral universe, there is no difference between Rangelians and Babalunians.
The "institutions of democracy?"
How about the forms of democracy?
When are those going to be honored at Babalú?
I can think of no better illustration of the hypocrisy, unctuousness, bullying, absolutism and visceral disdain for not only the practice of democracy but for the lives and future of those who are not free than Congressman Charlie Rangel. His desire that Cubans should always starve under Communism and Babalú's desire that Cubans should be starved out of Communism exhibit the same contempt for the Cuban people.
Rangel sees Cubans as the guinea pigs in his Marxist utopia; and the Babalunians as rats in a Pavlovian maze that can be trained by holding out and withholding grains of food. Both presuppose that Cubans exist solely for the purpose of being agents for their worst intentions.
In fact, in the moral universe, there is no difference between Rangelians and Babalunians.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
What Now, Babalú?
I once thought the death of Babalú, though an inevitable consequence of its own self-destructive policies and the unrestrained egotism of its principals, was nonetheless to be regretted. I would have preferred its reformation to its decimation; but though I have worked mightily to expose its structural defects in order that the building might be repaired and saved, the Babalunians have responded only by gutting it till nothing remains but the fascade.
In the beginning, when Val did not have George and Henry to feed his megalomania, Babalú was not the blog that it is today. That is, it was not the fascist counterpart of its reputed nemesis. Its fascism is not ideological, of course, but consists of adapting the methods of totalitarianism for its own uses and purposes. As such it is on a continuum with Communism, Naziiism and all other coersive systems of control over the minds and actions of man. To this has been added, as Babalú's own peculiar contribution, the same kind of vulgarity that one finds in Communist Cuba's chancletera aristocracy.
Given the fact that it refuses to change but every day becomes more anti-democratic, given also the great discredit that it has brought on all Cuban exiles, and the greater harm that it has done to our cause, I believe the time has passed to talk of reforming it. The only solution is for Babalú to fall by its own weight. It appears that it is already close to collapse. It cannot come soon enough to suit us.
In the beginning, when Val did not have George and Henry to feed his megalomania, Babalú was not the blog that it is today. That is, it was not the fascist counterpart of its reputed nemesis. Its fascism is not ideological, of course, but consists of adapting the methods of totalitarianism for its own uses and purposes. As such it is on a continuum with Communism, Naziiism and all other coersive systems of control over the minds and actions of man. To this has been added, as Babalú's own peculiar contribution, the same kind of vulgarity that one finds in Communist Cuba's chancletera aristocracy.
Given the fact that it refuses to change but every day becomes more anti-democratic, given also the great discredit that it has brought on all Cuban exiles, and the greater harm that it has done to our cause, I believe the time has passed to talk of reforming it. The only solution is for Babalú to fall by its own weight. It appears that it is already close to collapse. It cannot come soon enough to suit us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
