Invisible Cuba

Invisible Cuba Announces New Web Address (and new content)

2011-05-12T13:57:00.009-04:00

Invisible Cuba will henceforth be published at invisiblecuba.wordpress.com.

UPDATE MAY 19, 2011

The following posts have been recently published at the new address:

May 19, 2011 New Evidence Dead Dissident Was Beaten Up
tweet from an allegedly assassinated Cuban dissident’s pastor upends the Castro regime’s contention that it did not beat up the victim 3 days prior to his death. While the regime contends that Mr. Juan Wilfredo Soto García died of a pancreatic disease on May 8, his pastor declares in a You Tube video that on May 5 he had tweeted..."

May 18, 2011 Cuban Refuses Military Service, Serves Someone Else

May 17, 2011 Hague Court Wants Gaddafi Arrested But Why Now?

May 16, 2011 Cuban Dissident Home Under Attack – UPDATED

May 14, 2011 Another Kind of Revolution

"Then he told the few that were gathered how Mr. Soto’s blood also cried out to God....The pastor further proclaimed that “Wifredo’s blood has not been shed in vain…and that it announces a Cuba that is about to arrive.” ...Then he accused someone (it is unclear who he refers to) of responding to God just like Cain and boldly concluding that the Cuban regime is cursed and has signed its own death sentence....That did not stop him from asking for forgiveness towards Mr. Soto’s personal aggressors and calling for national reconciliation."

May 12, 2011 - Cardinal Ortega, Conscience and Totalitarian Cuba

Creighton will award the cardinal “an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree at …the Spring Commencement on May 14.” Hopefully we will know ...One wonders what the Archbishop of Omaha thinks of the Cardinal visiting and lecturing in his archdiocese about Catholics in totalitarian Cuba. ...Some have been characterizing the Cardinal as an emissary of the tyranny..."

Google Strikes in the United States Again

2011-03-26T16:33:00.033-04:00

Yet again one of my blog posts has been blocked or censored by Google. "Libya and Cuba: Simple Solutions Perhaps" was published over twelve hours ago and is still not available if one searches by its title. If this is a technical problem how is it that Google keeps messing up? If it is not, why is this - repeatedly - happening in the United States?

UPDATE MARCH 28, 2011 - 2;15 A.M.

Almost forty eight hours have now elapsed since I published the blocked post on Cuba and Libya but it still can not be found by its title. The Invisible Cuba blog that contains it as well as this post you are reading can be found. But the blocked post itself can not be found on any search engine by its title.

My post is like that tree falling in a forest empty of humans. Does the tree make a sound? One might think that because no one is around to hear it that it does not. But, objectively, of course it does, although no one is near enough to hear it.

Google Blogger effectively owns an Internet blogging forest. The sound that Google doesn't like for whatever reason is a sound that will not be heard. Search Engine Optimization (SEO) doesn't work with censorship.

Of course, I am aware that I can open a blog outside of the Google blogger forest. But that is not the point and, in any case, it would hardly solve much given that Google controls 84.77% of all Internet searches, 14 times more than its nearest rival. Furthermore, the other search engines obtain much of their information from Google.

Whatever Internet content Google hides or censors is seemingly pushed into virtual non existence and invisibility. If this can be demonstrated to be in fact the case (or nearly so), how could it be in the best interests of a free society?

What if Google's idea of "the Good" is off by even a fraction of a degree?

UPDATE MARCH 29, 2011, 1:49 P.M.

After over three days of invisibility, one is finally able to find Libya and Cuba: Simple Solutions Perhaps on Google's search engine. This is outrageous and I hope that mine is the only case.

UPDATED MARCH 29, 2011, 10:33 P.M.

The post "Libya and Cuba: Simple Solutions Perhaps" has been blocked by Google again after having been briefly unblocked earlier today. Not good.

MARCH 31, 2011, 9:45 A.M.

I last checked a few minutes ago and one can now find the blocked post by its title. But that had also happened briefly on March 29, as I reported then. There is no reason to trust it will not happen again with this post, or with a new post.

APRIL 11, 2011

I just discovered that I had been misspelling 'Libya' as 'Lybia'. Could that explain the block on the post? (Read below.)

APRIL 12, 2011 2011 UPDATE

No, a misspelling can not account for Google's five days http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifof censorship. There are plenty of misspellings in blog posts published by Google blogger.

RELATED

Invisible Cuba´s New Web Address

Invisible Cuba Announces New Web Address (and new content)

Censored by Google Again

Google Vs. Invisible Cuba

Google, the Mainstream News Media, Blogs and Cuba : What I thought was not so crazy after all

Google Hides Abuses in Cuba (Again)

Libya and Cuba: Simple Solutions Perhaps

2011-03-26T03:32:00.077-04:00

The emerging civil war in Libya is not far from what might happen in Cuba if the full opposition made itself visible and demanded that the Castro brothers surrender or leave. The assaults we have grown accustomed to seeing on Cuban non violent protesters could quickly metamorphose into threats of "hunting foes down in their homes" with "no mercy" and urging Cuban mobs to fight them "to the last drop of blood". Castro's old slogan was of course "socialism or death".

Understandably, Castro's opponents have very little interest in a civil war. Like the Libyan rebel opposition they would be unable to defend themselves against air attacks, tanks, grenades, and an assortment of weapons in the hands of the tyrannical regime's mercenaries. A tyranny's opponents have to be very careful not to start one of these things unless there is a clear path to victory that will not result in something that is worse than what exists at the moment.

But the uprising in Libya, as in much of the Arab world, appears to have been spontaneous. They were not planning on a civil war. It appears as if they figured they could get Gaddafi to step down with a relentless show of resolve and solidarity, just as the Egyptians had just done with Mubarak.

Gaddafi of course - like his good tyrant friend, Fidel Castro - had been closely watching events in Tunisia and Egypt and preparing his response should a challenge come his way. He observed what did not work and did not take any chances: civilian unarmed foes must be mercilessly exterminated. Thus, he "reasoned". Thus, it is quite comprehensible that President Obama reacted immediately and that NATO determined to stop the genocide the Libyan madman was publicly contemplating. But now we have civil war. So what are the options:

The first option is to abandon the Libyan civilian rebels and allow the genocide. That is obviously not acceptable.

The second option is to continue the bombing indefinitely. That will not prevent the massacre of some but will save the lives of even more. Yet, it probably won't end the civil war.

A third option is to train and arm the defenseless civilians for war but that means a possibly protracted civil war. Think El Salvador.

Then there is the option of attempting to negotiate peace but how long will that take and what happens in the meantime?

Finally, there is the option of splitting the country in half and protecting its dividing line with NATO troops until the new Lybyan nation can protect itself. That's what I have proposed be done in Cuba without any blood shed. But perhaps the solution is not so simple. Perhaps, I suppose, the Castros and Gaddafis of the world think it's easier to just be a tyrant. Whether they can get away with that will depend on the opposition and its allies.

Dividing Libya up (proportionately to the population on each side and resources) would establish a great precedent for Castro and Cuba, and for other peoples seeking freedom from dictatorships in the future, and their allies.

MARCH 26, 2011, 4:18 P.M. UPDATE
For Libya there is the immediate and considerable benefit of stopping deaths on both sides. Negotiations to reunite the country can then begin without anyone's life being threatened and anyone being governed without their consent. The same would apply if this were to be implemented in Cuba.

The benefit of this solution for the United States and NATO is that there is a clear and ethical exit path from the conflict. There should no longer be a genocidal threat and their role should quickly diminish as soon as the division is set up and Libyan civilians are trained to defend it.

MARCH 27, 8:14 P.M. UPDATE

This blog post is being censored by Google Blogger as I have explained here. Followers of this blog or feed subscribers may nevertheless have read it and thus this update is primarily intended for them.

First I want to more clearly restate a couple of the options I had written:

Second Option - restated:
I wrote: "The second option is to continue the bombing indefinitely..." That is not really an option. The purpose of the bombing is (or should be) to protect the lives of civilians opposing Gaddhafi given his threat to hunt them down mercilessly. While Gaddhafi threatens and hunts down civilians, if he can be deterred through air raids, they should continue. They should stop immediately if he demonstrates that he will no longer be the aggresor. People will die of course. But many more will die if no one stops Gaddhafi. Think Nazi Germany.

Fourth Option - restated:
I wrote: "Then there is the option of attempting to negotiate peace but how long will that take and what happens in the meantime?" Peace negotiations should begin as soon as Gaddhafi is willing to sit down and talk. But if while negotiating he continues being the aggressor then it is morally obligatory to continue defending the civilians. The best way to end the fighting and killing in such a case is to begin splitting the country up as described in the fifth option. Of course, if Gaddhafi stops being the agressor, hostilities should cease and negotiations should begin immediately.

Fifth Option - restated:
I wrote: "Finally, there is the option of splitting the country in half ..." Well, not in half. Ideally, each faction should have access to land, water and resources proportionate in quantity to the portion of the population that consents to be governed by it. Once the country is split and rebel civilians are trained to defend their portion the killing will cease. Both sides can then negotiate whatever they want, including the reunification of the country.

* * *

Pope Benedict XVI issued a call today for diplomatic talks to end the conflict. The Pope of course knows that the protests were not originally violent and that everything changed when Gaddhafi (spurred by Fidel Castro's and Hugo Chavez's support) began threatening and attacking civilians. There are about 40 thousand Catholics, mostly Italians, in predominantly Sunni Muslim (97%)Libya.

The Roman Catholic bishop of Tripoli issued a call for a cease to hostilities on March 22 and 23. This led to a strong criticism of the Vatican's "silence" by a renowned Italian Catholic writer, Sandro Magister.

As Catholics, we all want a cease to hostilities. The Pope and the Bishop of Tripoli urge negotiations. But what is to be done about Gaddhafi's attacks on civilians, they have not explained.

MARCH 28, 2011 UPDATE

In this video President Obama tells Americans why had Gaddhafi had to be, and had been, stopped.

President Obama Explains Libya Initiative
Photo from Associated Press video on You Tube

MARCH 29, 2011, 1:52 P.M. UPDATE

After over three days of invisibility, one is finally able to find the post you are now reading, "Libya and Cuba: Simple Solutions Perhaps", on Google's search engine. This is outrageous and I hope that mine is the only case.

But why was it unblocked now?

MARCH 29, 2011, 10:12 P.M. UPDATE

I just checked. This post has been blocked again. You can no longer find it by its title. One can find my next post referring to this one, by its title. But why not this one?

There is evidence that Google gives low rankings to news of Cubans being oppressed by the Castro tyranny. But this post is not even ranked. Not buried in Google search page one hundred and nine. It is simply blocked. Censored. By Google.

I realize that Google is not obligated to publish anyone or anything. But it controls 84.77% of Internet traffic.

MARCH 31, 2011, 9:52 A.M.

This post can now be found again by its title. But how does one trust Google after all of this?

APRIL 10, 2011 UPDATE

It is being reported that African leaders friendly to Gadhafi announced that he has accepted their cease-fire proposal. Not surprisingly, Cuba's 52 year dictatorship is also asking for a ceasefire in Libya. This is very good news except for the fact that Gadhafi's forces continue pounding the civilian rebels. Indeed, just today The Huffington Post reported:

"In the embattled city of Misrata, the lone rebel outpost in the west of the country, residents said shelling continued Sunday, killing one and wounding two others seriously.

"'We woke up at 7 a.m. from the tank fire,' said a doctor working at the local hospital who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

"Libya's third-largest city has been pounded without cease for more than a month by Gadhafi's heavy weapons, but the rebels have managed to hold out."

In addition, the Huffington Post also tells us that Gadhafi did not keep earlier cease fire promises.

"Gadhafi has ignored the cease-fire he announced after international airstrikes were authorized last month, and he rejects demands from the rebels, the U.S. and its European allies that he relinquish power immediately."

So what are the civilian rebels to do? Armed rebellion and foreign intervention only came about after Gaddhafi threatened to exterminate them.

Yes, of course, a cessation of hostilities is the best thing that could happen, the earlier the better. But the stronger force, that is, Gaddhafi and his armed forces, should immediately stop firing and retreat from all threatening positions. Negotiations with the (hopefully elected) civilian leadership should then immediately begin. If there is a will for peace it will be found. May Our Lord grant the Libyans that grace.

APRIL 11, 2011 UPDATE

The civilian rebels have reportedly rejected the ceasefire given that Gaddhafi´s forces have kept firing.

"Rebels in the Libyan city of Misrata scorned reports Muammar Gaddafi had agreed to a ceasefire on Monday after his forces fired rockets on the city and fought intense house-to-house battles."

If Gaddhafi wants his ceasefire offer to be taken seriously he should order his forces to stop and retreat to non threatening positions.

The rebels are however demanding that Gaddhafi must leave. They no longer sound like civilians on the verge of being exterminated but rather, arrogant and triumphalist. They must resist these temptations and place human life (children!) first. They must understand that their enemy also has supporters with a right to life in Libya.

APRIL 12, 2011 UPDATE

Given its publicly declared willingness to commit genocide, no one could argue that respect for its citizens is a high priority for the Gaddhafi dictatorship. A woman allegedly raped by fifteen men at the start of protests has now accused a government minister of being the ringleader. Apparently as a result of that, she is reportedly being accused of naming the rapists. She recounts how after two days of rapes she was finally able to escape from her assailants with the help of another woman who was not resisting the rapes and was therefore not tied. The Washington Post reported:

"Naked and hysterical, she said she jumped out of a window and threatened the African guards at the gate with a metal rod.

"'I could see fear in their faces when they looked at me — my hair was wild, I was naked and screaming,' she said.

"Once they opened the gates to the street, she ran for her life.

"'I ran down the side of the house screaming and crying and the ('rapists’) car was chasing me,' she remembers. 'Neighbors started to come out to look and they protected me.'

"Women in the neighborhood brought her clothes and paid for her taxi.

"'They asked if I wanted to go to the police station, but I didn’t go because that’s not where I would find justice,' she said."

Libya, Cuba, Obama and Lugar

2011-03-22T20:01:00.009-04:00

President Obama should be commended for taking concrete steps to stop Gaddafi's genocidal threats against the Libyan people who oppose him. But it's not surprising that one of the president's main critics on Libya is his ally on Cuba policy. Senator Richard Lugar [Rep-Ind], has been a tireless advocate for the lifting of travel restrictions to Cuba, a move that will result in the financing of the Castro tyranny. The bills he sponsored last year were never passed; yet Obama acted on Cuba, without Congressional approval, in a manner that obtained what the senator had been wanting to legislate. No complaints were heard from Senator Lugar then. But now the senator has expressed his disappointment with Obama's initiative on Libya, complaining that "it should be handled different."

Apparently Senator Lugar believes President Obama was constitutionally required to have first consulted Congress because of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. That's a fair and debatable question but the Senator dropped the piano when he tells the world that he wants to know who the Americans are fighting in Libya and who they will end up supporting in the end.

"People are being killed. So the question is how do you stop the killing, I suppose. And furthermore, after you do, who do we recognize? Do we recognize Gadhafi who is still there after all this time or do we take further action to depose him, literally to eliminate his regime? That is not at all clear. In fact, it's hardly been discussed as far as I can tell.

That is not at all clear? Evidently supporting Gaddhafi, even after he has threatened to exterminate all Libyans who oppose him, has remained a real option for this United States Senator. But it is not inconsistent with his willingness, and the enormous effort he made in favor of the Castro tyranny (or with Fidel Castro's and Hugo Chavez's support of the Libyan madman). President Obama should be careful with political friends like this.

RELATED

Interview with Senator Richard Lugar

Obama Vs. Obama's Shadow on Cuba

2011-03-21T22:47:00.015-04:00

At the Palacio de las Monedas in Chile today, President Obama spoke of his commitment to the "independence of the Cuban people" and placed his hopes on "Cuban authorities" who he insisted "must take some meaningful actions to respect the basic rights of their own people — not because the United States insists upon it, but because the people of Cuba deserve it." Now really.

Obama's shadow: Cubans deserve it and therefore I believe Fidel will wake up from his trance and their nightmare. Or maybe Raul will ... and that will suffice.

President Obama continued: "Let’s never waver in our support for the rights of people to determine their own future — and, yes, that includes the people of Cuba. Since taking office, I’ve announced the most significant changes to my nation’s policy towards Cuba in decades. I’ve made it possible for Cuban Americans to visit and support their families in Cuba. We’re allowing Americans to send remittances that bring some economic hope for people across Cuba, as well as more independence from Cuban authorities."

Me: Come on, don't hold back. Don't hide it now. Say it: You licensed eight more airports, now 11, to fly all Americans with a cultural interest in Castro to Cuba to pay their tributes with American dollars (that should really be going to the aching Miami and South Floridian Cuban exile and Latin American immigrant tourism driven economy).

Obama's shadow: Man, Fidel ... Raul ... wake up.... This is the mother of all bribes. I'm sending billions your way. Come on guys, don't pretend you don't know that I know that you control everything...yes...the banks too....And Cuban exiles. Just wait and see. I'll bribe you too.

President Obama: "Going forward, we’ll continue to seek ways to increase the independence of the Cuban people, who I believe are entitled to the same freedom and liberty as everyone else in this hemisphere. I will make this effort to try to break out of this history that’s now lasted for longer than I’ve been alive."

Obama's shadow: That's why I'm bribing Fidel and Raul like no one ever has before. We never went this far with Batista. I'm sure this strategy will work. If it doesn't, some of my supporters at least will be wealthier too. It's a win win with Fidel.

President Obama: "The lessons of Latin America, I believe, can be a guide — a guide for people around the world who are beginning their own journeys toward democracy."

Obama's shadow: Just look at how almost all of them have supported Fidel in Cuba. Hey, I heard Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Mexico were all warned ahead about that poor guy (now what was his name? Zapata Tamayo? And his poor mom too.) who was starved to death by, ja, ja, "the Cuban Authorities", and apparently did nothing to prevent it. I read how Lula uselessly tried to defend himself after the letter showing that he had been previously informed ... by Invisible Cuba ...was published. The others did not even speak up. But they received the plea for help ahead of time too. That's the way to go. Just do as they do and smile. It's worked for them and for Fidel, hasn't it?

President Obama: "There is no one model for democratic transitions."

Obama's shadow: That's right. Just look at Cuba. Their good old revolution to cure Batista's coup on Cuba's democracy has been going on for 52 years.

President Obama: "But as this region knows, successful transitions do have certain ingredients. The moral force of nonviolence."

Obama's shadow: That's right. That's why we are bribing Fidel. No force. Just money. It'll be a win win this time.

President Obama: "Dialogue that’s open and inclusive."

Obama's shadow: Who says criminals shouldn’t be a part of it? Who says murdering more than 8000 of your own people and goading 3-4 million into exile is so bad? Hey, no one is perfect.

President Obama: "The protection of basic rights, such as peaceful expression and assembly. Accountability for past wrongs. And matching political reform with economic reform, because democracy must meet the basic needs and aspirations of people."

Me: Oh, but wait, maybe Obama is serious. Now I'm confused. So the Castros are to be held “accountable for past wrongs” (trashing the Cuban constitution, murders, summary trials, false imprisonments, theft, three to four million exiles). But they are also trusted to remain in charge, and lead political and economic reform?

He can't be serious. That can't be what he means. But if it isn't, then why is he sending billions their way?

Censored by Google Again

2011-03-20T23:31:00.020-04:00

Once again one of my blog posts has been (hopefully temporarily) censored by Google. "Compassion Here and Justice There by Setting the Captives Free" was published over a half hour ago and is still not available if one searches by its title (above), "Cuba" or "Cuba Gross". I thought this only happened in Cuba, Venezuela, China and Islamic countries.

UPDATE

At 12:32 A.M. (3-21-2011) it was still being censored. It was published at 10:56 P.M. (3-20-2011).

UPDATE 12:45 A.M. (3-21-2011)

Nor can this post that you are now (unlikely, thanks to Google) reading be found in Google by searching for "Cuba", "Cuba Censorship" or "Exiled Cubans Censorship". It can be found by searching for "Invisible Cuba Censorship". So it can probably only be found if you know it exists, that is, by me or very close followers.

UPDATE 1:50 A.M.

One can now find "Compassion Here and Justice There by Setting the Captives Free" if one searches for its whole title, but who is going to do that not knowing it even exists?

UPDATE 11:27 A.M - MARCH 21, 2011

The censorship issue now appears to have been resolved but with unintended results. This post denouncing censorship can now be easily found by searching, for example, for "Cuba Gross". But it cannot be found by searching for "Google censorship", "Cuba censorship" or "Google Cuba Censorship" (first ten pages of any of the former).

The censored post denounced herein can now be more easily found, for example, by searching for "Cuba Gross Compassion", but not by "Cuba Gross" or "Cuba", which are the most likely ways someone would search for this topic.

RELATED

Google, the Mainstream News Media, Blogs and Cuba : What I thought was not so crazy after all

Google Hides Abuses in Cuba (Again)

Compassion Here and Justice There by Setting the Captives Free

2011-03-20T22:56:00.027-04:00

Freeing Cuba's five spies imprisoned in the United States may be the most ethical and effective way to obtain the release of American Alan Gross and Castro's remaining Cuban political prisoners. While these spies certainly facilitated the murder of Cuban exiles, to my knowledge there is no evidence that they knew this would happen or linking them to the decision to shoot down the small aircraft carrying them to Cuba. The regime led by Castro murdered them. The spies only uncovered the plan and informed Castro of its details. They are, however, guilty of having spied in the United States but, unlike murder, that is not necessarily intrinsically evil; and the United States also has spies.

Castro's five spies obeyed his orders, just as United States spies are expected to obey the orders of its government. The fact that Castro's is not a legitimate government makes no difference since he still exercises power as if it was and forces people to obey him. The spies could have chosen another career or refused (if recruited) to become spies for a tyranny; of that they are guilty, but not of first degree murder.

It is a terrible injustice for innocent people such as Castro's political adversaries or Mr. Gross (regardless his political views) to be separated from their families and imprisoned in Cuba. More painful yet is the fact that Mr. Gross' twenty six year old daughter has been diagnosed with cancer. If by freeing any or all of these five spies their and/or his liberty can be obtained, then it should be the first option to consider, provided it does not jeopardize the security of the United States.

As expressed in a previous post:

"Freeing a prisoner who is innocent (e.g. Alan Gross, Castro's political prisoners regardless of charges) is the only just thing to do. Freeing one who, once freed, cannot bring harm to others, is compassion."

Furthermore, for Cubans and Cuban Americans who oppose Castro's tyranny, this solution is far superior to the one proposed by the Wall Street Journal, that is, conditioning visas and economic assistance to a criminal tyranny in order to obtain the release of Mr. Gross. That would be a grave offense, just as it was to support Batista after his 1952 coup on Cuba's democratically elected government.

Instead, travel by Americans (including Cuban Americans) to Cuba should be unconditionally stopped (except for exclusively religious purposes). Remittances by Americans to Cuba, and any other policy that economically enriches and therefore strengthens the tyranny should be immediately stopped, unless it can reasonably be expected to bring down the tyranny in less than one year. Cultural exchanges should similarly be immediately stopped as they only serve to package and promote a criminal who has enslaved a nation for over fifty two years. None of those policies should ever have been implemented.

Only direct and open charity by the US government or authorized Churches should be allowed for the exclusive purposes of helping Cubans (i) build houses (ii) grow food, (iii) prevent malnutrition, (iv) obtain free uncensored access to the Internet and (v) pursue religious purposes (hopefully Roman Catholic).

So the foregoing is a way to perhaps obtain the release of Alan Gross without further harming the Cuban people.

RELATED

Flawed Reasoning on Cuba by The Wall Street Journal and Obama

Flawed Reasoning on Cuba by The Wall Street Journal and Obama

2011-03-16T18:23:00.031-04:00

According to the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board, the United States should condition bailing out the Cuban tyranny on the release of convicted and imprisoned American citizen Alan Gross.

"Conditioning future visas and Cuba's economic lifeline on Mr. Gross's release is the only message that the Castro brothers and their government will heed."

But, this of course would make America's Cuba policy contingent on one American. Secondly, such a policy repeats a grave historical error with Cuba, that is, supporting a dictatorship.

Is this really what the Wall Street Journal believes should be done? If so, its policy recommendation couldn't be more perfectly aligned with the United States' 1952 Cuba policy, when it immediately began supporting Batista, after his coup on Cuba's democratically elected government.

If the United States government wants to be taken seriously in its defense of democracy and human rights it should unconditionally stop helping keep tyrannies afloat. That should not be too hard to understand.

While the United States continues to bail out this tyranny, unconditionally, or conditionally as the Wall Street Journal recommends, it will only continue to demonstrate that truly nothing has changed in its Cuba policy in the 59 years since Batista's coup, which is when this tragic mess began.

Therefore the United States should withdraw all recent concessions (cultural travel, remittances by all Americans allowed, etc.) whether or not Alan Gross is released.

In a previous version of this blog post I had referred to the Wall Street Journal's suggestion as "tantamount to giving in to extortion". But it is not extortion, because Castro has not explicitly demanded or asked for anything in exchange for releasing Alan Gross. The truth is that the Wall Street Journal is in effect suggesting that the United States bribe tyrant Castro with economic assistance. This is unethical and hypocritical. It is unethical to abet a tyrant who for 52 years has robbed a people of their nation and is on the list of US terrorist states. It is hypocritical and an insult to Cuban (anti Batista, anti Castro) exiles who arrived in these shores from 1960 onwards trusting in the United States and its democracy, to now suggest it's necessary to finance the tyrant who caused their exile. Cuban Batistianos who arrived in 1959 will probably not mind if Castro is bribed, as they are of the same ilk. But the United States should finally just stop listening to them.

Furthermore, by attempting to buy Castro off with concessions, the United States is providing him with the ideological ammunition he uses with nationalist non-socialist Cubans, and Latin Americans, and a cover for every crime he has committed and may yet commit.

Rather than condition the issuing of Cuban visas to Gross' release, as the Wall Street Journal recommends, I believe no more should be granted, conditionally or unconditionally, because they have become a way for Castro to create a base in the United States. However, exiles who have parents or offspring in Cuba should be allowed to bring them to the United States (vertical family only). But they should not be allowed to travel to Cuba from the United States anymore. To avoid family break ups, they should bring them to the United States or move back.

If the United States wants to help Cubans it can directly and openly help them build their own homes, grow their own food, provide them with food and nutritional supplements where needed, and with the means to communicate freely on the Internet. Castro may of course not agree to any of this generosity. But that bridge should be crossed only once he refuses it.

If the United States wants to help Cubans it should also not forget the exiles to whom it once opened its arms.

As for the release of Alan Gross, there is no easy ethical answer. He is not guilty for he did nothing unjust. Yet he is in a Cuban prison.

UPDATE

MARCH 29, 2011 1:39 A.M.

But at the beginning of his public ministry, quoting Isaiah 61:1, Jesus proclaimed:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord."

Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him.

He said to them, "Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing."

You can read it in Luke 4: 18-21.

So that is what I think God wants, on both sides.

UPDATE MARCH 20, 2011 10:29 P.M.

When Jesus announced that he came to free prisoners, he primarily meant prisoners of Satan, of sin, for he later asserted that his Kingdom was not of this world (John 18: 36). So why am I using Luke's passage (Luke 4 18:21) to recommend that prisoners be freed and on on both sides?

The fact that his kingdom is not of this world does not mean that he excluded liberating prisoners in the here and now. Indeed, Jesus encouraged compassion towards those in prison when in Matthew 25: 36 he says: "For I was ... in prison and you visited me."

Freeing a prisoner who is innocent (e.g. Alan Gross, Castro's political prisoners regardless of charges) is the only just thing to do. Freeing one who, once freed, cannot bring harm to others, is compassion.

Accordingly, if freeing Cuba's five spies imprisoned in the United States cannot harm this country (including Cuban American exiles) but can obtain the release of Gross and Castro's Cuban political prisoners, then it would be an intelligent act of compassion to liberate them.

RELATED

American Convicted and Sentenced - What Now?

This Time It's an American Who May be Convicted in Cuba (Revised)

Japan

2011-03-14T09:16:00.046-04:00

May God help the people of Japan.

You can make a donation through Catholic Relief Services (U.S. Bishops' international relief and development agency), Caritas (Catholic Church's international charitable organization) or the American Red Cross.

UPDATE: March 15, 2011, 1:13 A.M.

Why has God allowed something like this, I've asked myself throughout the day today. My faith was shaken. Why does He just not listen to my prayers and stop it?

The readings at today's Catholic Mass provided me with an answer. Reflecting on Leviticus 19:1-2, 11-18 and the Gospel of Matthew 25:31-46, Rev. Deviny C.P., the priest who presided at the celebration of the Mass online at St. Ann's Monastery reminded us that we are "made in the image of God" and are therefore "holy as He is holy."

But human beings certainly don't seem very holy for the most part I thought.

Rev. Deviny then spoke about Jesus' message in Matthew's gospel:

"Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you,
or thirsty and give you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you,
or naked and clothe you?
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?"
And the king will say to them in reply,
"Amen, I say to you, whatever you did
for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me."

He continued and asked why then had Jesus "condemned the pharisees who perfectly observed all of the commandments" and answered:

"Being holy for a Christian should be heart centered and not merely action centered. Being holy means being compassionate as Jesus was compassionate. Being holy means allowing the Spirit of Jesus living in us to transform our hearts and our actions. The Holy Spirit moves our hearts to have compassion on the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked and the imprisoned. Our actions follow our hearts, and we give according to our ability: food, water, welcoming to the strangers and clothe the naked, consolation to the imprisoned."

"Being holy means becoming Christ's heart and Christ's hands."

That is, I reasoned, perhaps God's purpose in allowing this monstrous tragedy. It is an opportunity for humankind to become holy, to become Christ's heart and hands for Japan. For being holy "as God is holy" lasts for eternity and is therefore incomparably more important than any suffering in this world.

Seen this way, suffering, and Japan's tragedy, is meant as a gift for humanity.

UPDATE 4:00 A.M.

Reading what I wrote in my previous update tonight, one might ask how the nuclear plant explosions and the spread of radiation is a gift.

While nuclear plants are human made the constitution of energy and matter is not. But had there been no nuclear plants this stage of the tragedy would not be occurring. So there is a metaphysical as well as a human dimension to the question.

The metaphysical question might be answered like seventeenth century German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz did, that is, by arguing that God created the best of all possible worlds (note that St. Thomas Aquinas did not agree). Following Leibniz lead, one would argue that the constitution of matter and energy is essential for experiencing life as we have known it, prior to nuclear plants.

But nuclear energy can potentially serve good purposes if appropriately harnessed and regulated by humanity. Thus man made nuclear plants could have a place. But how fast and at what cost? Why were we not ready for this tragedy if not because we rushed to satisfy the "need" for energy? But isn't it mortally foolish for the first world to have rushed to nuclear energy without first being able to control it worldwide?

This raises several questions one of which is the availability and cost of other energy sources as well as about lifestyle expectations and high energy usage by highly industrialized and rapidly developing nations.

Was it worth it to supply a Japanese family with energy for fifty years only to have it die from radiation? Of course not. Yet first world families (and now China and Iran too) want a certain standard of living no matter what, and at any cost, it would seem. Arguably billions are willing to give up their lives and those of their children and grandchildren for a lifestyle, however frivolous and ultimately incapable of fundamentally satisfying existential religious needs it may be.

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal reported that Monday morning, just two days after this disaster struck, Japanese in Tokyo were reported to be angry about the train delays. Some did not want to be late for work. Surely they knew there were thousands just dead from the tsunami, or perishing, or in grave danger because of radiation resulting from nuclear plant explosions.

"Anger in Japan is mounting at Tokyo Electric Power Co., the country's leading utility, not just over the precarious nuclear situation but also over its mismanagement of a series of planned blackouts that caused mass confusion and delays in the commute for many Japanese heading back to work on Monday.... It's just too confusing," Nobuyoshi Takashimaya, 56 years old, an insurance firm employee in Tokyo. He said he had to walk one hour from home to reach his office because his train wasn't working."

"A Tepco spokesman, responding to the barrage of criticism, said he regretted there was inaccurate information about the areas affected by the blackouts. ...Even before Monday's confusion, the company took out a full-page ad in the Nikkei newspaper, Japan's leading financial paper, apologizing for the inconvenience of the blackouts and asking for Japan's cooperation in conserving energy."

Confronting mortality in the face is not easy, even for an unrelentingly stoic people like the Japanese. Better get to work, make some dough, drink Sake and watch the sunset on a wide television screen. Although perhaps that is one of the problems that got us here.

American Convicted and Sentenced - What Now?

2011-03-13T08:17:00.003-04:00

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Mr. Alan Gross, an American Jew, has been convicted to 15 years in prison in Cuba. According to the Associated Press, the Cuban court said the case had been proven that Mr. Gross was:

"...working on a "subversive" program paid for by the United States that aimed to bring down Cuba's revolutionary system."

The New York Times reported American officials saying:

"... USAID programs in Cuba, a $20 million initiative, were being reworked to emphasize educational exchanges and small-business growth rather than efforts that could be perceived as directly weakening the government."

Interesting but not surprising.

However, one is very sorry to hear about Mr. Gross. One is very sorry for his daughter and family. Mr. Gross is being used as a bargaining chip and that is inhumane.

But the United States must not give in to extortion.

Furthermore, if it does not have any realistic strategy to rescue new American captives in Cuba it should immediately warn them, and swiftly stop allowing travel there. It should never have permitted it given that it finances Castro.

Cuban Americans who have families in Cuba should not be allowed to travel there any longer either. Visas to Cubans wishing to come to the United States should be restricted to those who already have an immediate family member in the United States or for political reasons. Cultural and academic exchanges should cease. They have only served to promote and embolden Castro. Visits by clergy for religious purposes should be allowed in both directions.

The United States should not support or help strengthen a tyranny. It should bring relations with Cuba back to the just basis that was abandoned with its immediate support of Batista's coup in 1952. Everything started there.

RELATED

This Time It's an American Who May be Convicted in Cuba (Revised)

This Time It's an American Who May be Convicted in Cuba (Revised)

2011-03-09T23:02:00.060-05:00

Allan Gross, a United States citizen, and Jewish, may be convicted in Cuba after having been charged with distributing Internet communications equipment to Cuba's tiny Jewish community. The attorney who has been assisting Mr. Gross' family (in Cuba, but not in court), happens to be the same one representing the Castro tyranny in the United States in the case of 5 Cubans convicted of spying. The trial lasted only two days. So what could all of this mean?

On the United States' end, perhaps we can get some insights from very recent debates in Congress. Cuban American Congressman David Rivera had recently questioned Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela about whether President Obama's Administration considered Mr. Gross a hostage, and if it had granted the Castro tyranny concessions in order to obtain his release. A few days earlier Cuban American Senator Marco Rubio had also questioned the Assistant Secretary of State regarding the sudden shift in the Administration's policy to one which now allows all Americans to visit and send money to Cuba.

The sudden change in United States policy is stunning and one might not believe it were it not really happening. While an American has been held hostage without a trial for almost one year in totalitarian Cuba, the United States has been preparing to reward his captors. The reward? Well, more Americans.

Indeed, today, as Castro and his team continue to supposedly deliberate on whether and for how long to convict the American, US newspapers are reporting that airports throughout the United States and even Puerto Rico will now be able to deliver Americans (by the thousands? Tens of thousands?) to his doorstep. No longer are flights restricted to academics, journalists or Cuban American exiles flying out of Miami, New York or Los Angeles. Now, any American with a cultural interest in Castro or Cuba can also fly from Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta, O'Hare in Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Tampa, BWI in Washington or Luis Muñoz Marín in San Juan, Puerto Rico. What timing.

Whatever the verdict, Mr. Castro has already set an unambiguous precedent with Mr. Gross' detention and trial: his many friends in the United States are most welcomed, and other visitors too, but not to help Cubans communicate freely with the world, let alone help them liberate themselves from his 52 year dictatorship.

Mr. Castro will probably also want to use Mr. Gross to obtain the release of the Cuban spies who in 1996 helped facilitate the interception and murder of United States citizens (Cuban exiles) in international airspace on their way to Cuba. Trading humans for humans is actually an ethical improvement in Castro's historical record. A few may still remember when in 1961 he callously and successfully traded those who back then were his adversaries, but also his fellow Cuban citizens, for American tractors.

Mr. Fidel Castro likely sees Mr. Gross as an opportunity, and will likely want more if he can get it. For example, can anyone seriously doubt he would want to make himself further immune to what his student and ally Muammar Gaddafi is facing in Lybia? Not that he faces anything remotely near such a threat. It would make no sense for Cubans to begin killing each other to rid themselves of a man in his eighties or his slightly younger brother. Nor would it make sense to resolve this problem like Lybia and thereby provide yet another tyrant opportunity to emerge.

It will be tragic however if Mr. Gross' is convicted, not only because he did nothing wrong but because his daughter was diagnosed with breast cancer after his detention last year.

See picture of Mr. Allan Gross and his daugher Shira

Published in Along the Malecon Blog

However, Mr. Gross' daughter and family will perhaps be consoled that her father is still on the just side of history. Furthermore, a New York Times prediction may ease their worries. The New York paper, which in 1959 helped defeat another tyrant* by promoting Mr. Castro into power, tells us:

"Although Mr. Gross faces a stiff sentence, most political observers expect him to be released on humanitarian grounds."

Mr. Castro, the humanitarian.

If Mr. Gross' release will come about as a result of the Obama Administration's clandestine concessions to the tyranny, The New York Times doesn't say. Nor does it ask what will happen if other Americans are taken captive. Now that permission to travel to Cuba has been broadly extended, there is a plan for that, right?

_________________________________________________
UPDATE MARCH 12, 2011
According to the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters Mr. Gross was convicted today to 15 years in a Cuban prison. Granma has not reported anything yet.
_________________________________________________
*HISTORICAL NOTE

That other tyrant was Fulgencio Batista, previously a legitimately elected president (1940-1944) but who decided to return to power in March 1952, not through elections, given he was behind in polls, but through a violent coup shortly before they were scheduled. The 59th anniversary of said coup is, hmmm, today, March 10, 2011.

Prior to Batista's coup and Castro's tyranny, Cuba enjoyed a representative democracy with divisions of power, and three consecutive legitimate elections (1940, 1944, 1948). United States President Harry Truman, nevertheless, recognized Batista as Cuba's legitimate president only 15 days after his 1952 coup. President Eisenhower also supported him, except towards the end.

The New York Times helped popularize Castro through its reporter Herbert Matthews, who spent time with him in the Cuban Sierra Maestra, where he was evidently preparing to be the next dictator while claiming to be ridding the people of a tyrant. Indeed, almost everyone in Cuba who did not support Batista's murderous regime supported Castro. But many were imprisoned or executed upon rebelling after realizing that they had been duped, that is, that Castro did not have any intention of holding democratic elections or respecting Cuba's 1940 republican constitution. That is what the university student organizations and urban rebels had been fighting for and almost everyone else's hope. Urban rebellion led by those who had fought against Batista continued for months against Castro after he consolidated power.

There are more than 8000 documented executions or disappearances under the Castro tyranny according to the Truth and Memory project of the Cuba Archive.

1961 - Cuban Patriots from the poorly US supported Bay of Pigs invasion

upon arriving in Miami after having been imprisoned and then traded by Castro for tractors.

Meandering Cuba 2 (Updated)

2010-11-27T14:35:00.002-05:00

This time they are not on a hunger strike but have nonetheless been deprived of access to food and water for 5 days. Castro's political police has surrounded their home in eastern Cuba and reportedly thrown water in through closed windows, thereby breaking some. Meanwhile, Mrs. Reina Luisa Tamayo awaits for the ashes of her dissident son who died in the Castro regime´s custody while on a hunger strike in February. Supposedly, they will soon be given to her but then she will be banished to the United States under an agreement supposedly backed by the Catholic Church.

Mrs. Tamayo attends a Catholic Church in Banes from where she typically walks to her son's grave. But she actually prays to a mythological African (Yoruba religion) deity, whom she sweetly refers to as "my Changó". How is it that supposedly Catholic Cubans expect God's liberating help while worshiping idols instead of Christ?

(I'm very sorry for all that she has suffered but hopefully she is not participating in Catholic communion while worshiping her idol. She certainly cannot claim to be a practicing Catholic. It's astonishing and terribly offensive that she has been using a Catholic temple while praying to a false deity and not to the Blessed Trinity. Insuperable ignorance cannot explain this. Doesn't she see the crucifix inside the Catholic Church? Doesn't she listen to the gospel readings? The fact that there are probably numerous followers of Afro Cuban Santeria posing as Catholics and receiving communion is a terrible offense. Why hasn´t the Cuban Catholic Church put a stop to this sacrilegious syncretism? Why don't they explain to Mrs. Tamayo the difference between a mythological idol and the liberating God of history? It is their duty, just as it was Moses' to chastise Aaron when the Jewish people reverted to idols in the Old Testament.)

In their struggle, the besieged dissidents are pleading for the liberation of political prisoners, and now of American Citizen Alan Gross too. Additionally, they are asking (who? the tyrants?) that one's "liberty of movement" be respected, and for an end to death threats against dissidents, yet they only mention eastern Cuba.

But why don't they just demand that the tyranny step down? That would actually mean something. Dissidents are just not credible when they act as if asking a 51 year tyranny to stop being tyrannical meant something.

RELATED

Meandering Cuba

The Catholic Catechism

Meandering Cuba

2010-11-18T20:30:00.007-05:00

Once again Cuba's political police has intercepted the mother of a dead hunger striking dissident in whom Cubans' resistance to tyranny is converging. On Sunday, Mrs. Reina Luisa Tamayo's home in Banes was surrounded by the political police, who prevented her from going to church and to her son's tomb, as well as anyone from entering or leaving her home. Her associate Ladies in White were also kept out of the Iglesia de la Caridad and the cemetery. Meanwhile, a national resistance movement bearing Orlando Zapata Tamayo's name now has a wing in his hometown of Banes and another in Placetas. Its Secretary General is Mr. Jorge Luis García Pérez, also known as Antúñez, a former political prisoner and leader of the resistence in Placetas. Around 15 dissidents were reportedly arrested in central and oriental Cuba on Sunday.

On his end, after having broken his promise to release political prisoners, Mr. Raul Castro 'promised' it again. One political prisoner, Mr. Diosdado González Marrero, evidently a victim of psychological torture, again believed Castro and thankfully stopped the hunger strike he had begun to protest the cruel 4 month wait that ended in a lie.

Mr. Castro also called for another meeting of the so called "National Assembly" (a parliament hand picked by the tyrant's brother that last met in 1997) for 2011. Another political prisoner, Mr. José Daniel Ferrer García, soberly responded that Cuba didn't need another Communist Party Congress, that what it needed was a Constitutional Assembly. Of course, that (or better yet, reinstating the 1940 Constitution set aside by Batista's and Castro's coups) is what's obvious, but the Castros can't be the ones to organize it. Cuba's real leaders must be the ones to do that.

Related:

Cultural Dialogue But About What?

Ladies in White: "We´re Not Afraid of You"

Report of Attempt to Visit Antúnez and Cubans under Siege in Placetas

Don't Ask Stupid Questions

I know this may sound crazy but is Google part of Media blackout on Antúnez and the ongoing siege in Placetas?

Cultural Dialogue But About What?

2010-11-08T13:05:00.032-05:00

Some of us waited until midnight November 7 for the Castros to release all of Cuba's political prisoners, as Mr. Raul Castro had promised. Just last week Cuba's Cardinal Ortega had expressed how honored he was by Mr. Raul Castro's presence at the inauguration of the first Catholic seminary in Cuba in 51 years. For a very brief moment, I even considered: could it be that Raul and Fidel are converting to Catholicism? Might it be that they are sorry for their crimes against the Cuban people? Does the cardinal perhaps know something which we don't? After all, they are unrepentant murderers in their late seventies and eighties and conceivably could die at any moment. Maybe, I wondered, Raul spiritually confided in the cardinal and that's why they appear to have a close bond.

As it turned out, I must have been fantasizing for the Castros appear far from repenting or converting to anything, let alone to the gospel of love and eternal life. As for Cardinal Ortega having expressed being honored by Mr. Raul Castro's presence, maybe he just did not know what else to say in the face of a murderous criminal in a suit who mixed himself in with a room full of others at a religious ceremony. Perhaps he took his cue from Jesus who soaked some bread and gave it to Judas while ordering him to quickly take care of the business that remained. (But hopefully Raul and Fidel will not meet the same fate. Hopefully both will repent and be humble enough to accept mercy and forgiveness in the true faith and the one they were baptized in, before it's too late.)

Raul Castro has now broken his promise. In his brother's mind there likely wasn't any point in keeping it given the results of the United States midterm elections. What might they expect to get in return for imprisoned Cubans now? Fidel, after all, has been trading Cubans ever since the post Bay of Pigs prisoner sale. He knows his business well. That's why they had promised to release all prisoners only after the United States' elections. In any case, the broken promise was not really much of a surprise and certainly not the only troubling news for Cubans the past week, even if the media missed it.

I just finished reading Mrs. Reina Luisa Tamayo's testimony on what the regime put her through last Sunday, November 1. Evidently emboldened by the support they have been getting, the tyrannic duo unchained their renowned rabid security mob on the mother of the dissident who in February died after more than 80 days on a hunger strike. Allegedly her son was killed by the regime's intentional negligence for he was imprisoned and therefore in their custody. So on the morning of November 1, Castro's regime allegedly had Mrs. Tamayo, her children and supporters brutally beaten up as they were leaving the cemetery where her son Orlando Zapata Tamayo is buried in Banes. Her son's tomb has evidently becoming a symbolic threat to the tyranny as has the mother of the one who is interred therein. It's not the first beating she gets from the regime's political police after her son's death,

According to Mrs. Tamayo, as she was preparing to leave church to visit her son's tomb, she observed people outside who she believed were preparing to harass her. Indeed, as she approached the cemetery with her children and companions, a person who frequently harasses her by calling her dead son "a skeleton" began laughing along with a growing crowd. They then began throwing rocks at them, striking two of Mrs. Tamayo's remaining sons and one of her daughters. Mixed in with the group where security and military personnel dressed as civilians. Then the man who routinely harasses her threatened to kill her and began to call her dead son a homosexual.

Upon reaching the cemetery and while surrounding her son's tomb, she says she saw uniformed military men, police cars, ambulances and buses close by. Finally, upon finishing her visit and stepping with one foot outside of the cemetery’s door, a military officer called out an order and she was thrown on the floor.

They then hit Mrs. Tamayo in the mouth and jumped on the others. Three men jumped on top of her and began pulling at her purse and pants to seemingly leave her in her intimate clothing, she contends. She was finally grabbed by both arms and forced by civilian dressed military women into a vehicle.

Regime officers shouted at her: "Shameless woman, you sold your son". She responded "Down with Fidel! Down with Zapata's assassins." But an officer warned: "Shut up you (expletive) Negro!" The chauffeur, a police officer, then told the other officers to take a dirty rag soaked in gasoline and stick it in her mouth but she clenched her teeth to prevent them and so they held it against her closed mouth, almost asphyxiating her, she says. She was then taken to a police station which was surrounded by military in civilian clothes. There she was denied water.

After the ordeal Mrs. Tamayo lamented: "Here in Banes , there is a total state of siege ...the cynics and assassins who tortured Zapata (her son) still think of themselves as having a right to beat up my (other) children and my brothers (her sympathizers), the ones who give me life, who sustain my life."

She finishes her declaration pleading for the world's help but she was again detained (in front of her home) and beaten up yesterday, November 7, the day the prisoners who were not released were supposed to have been freed.

Mrs. Reina Luisa Tamayo
Dissident Mother of Dead Hunger Striker Dissident
Photo taken from Directorio de Cuba

If one were to judge by what has been published in the most prestigious American newspapers the past week, part of the United States is blindly enthusiastic about the potential for a "cultural dialogue" with the brutally criminal Cuban tyranny and its supporters. How else could one otherwise explain how they missed Mrs. Tamayo's brutal assault while covering the tyranny's ballet? In a way, it's perfectly understandable, for just how does Mrs. Tamayo, her family, the political prisoners who were not released after all the promises and multiparty elections fit into the cultural dialogue? This they just never adequately explain.

In contrast, when it comes to a place like Burma (Myanmar), Senator Kerry [Dem], Chairman of the United States Senate's Foreign Relations committee, knows exactly what he wants: big changes and nothing less.

"The military’s 'roadmap to democracy' will lead to a dead-end if the government keeps its political opponents jailed and muzzled... If the Burmese government breaks from the policies of the past, the United States should stand ready to improve relations....But make no mistake, this will require a government with new faces and new policies: releasing political prisoners, easing media and speech restrictions..."

I wish Senator Kerry had said something like that about Cuba too but please don't misunderstand, I don't mean to single him out. He's certainly not the only one in Congress or in the United States who has been wanting to finance Castro's tyranny. But why isn't the United States Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, which he leads, demanding the same changes in Cuba?

Why have those who have sought to befriend, glorify, finance and uphold Cuba's tyrant as either a sage and model to be learned from or a sinner to be rehabilitated by United States tourist dollars, remained silent while Mrs. Tamayo was being threatened, insulted, struck, gagged, dragged on pavements and subjected to expletives hurled at her and her dead son?

AUDIO OF MRS. TAMAYO'S TESTIMONY FROM DIRECTORIO DEMOCRATICO CUBANO:

More audios from Directorio Democrático Cubano

UPDATE: Will Castro Break His Promise?

2010-11-07T22:23:00.004-05:00

Mr. Raul Castro is a little more than one hour away from breaking his promise to free all of Cuba's political prisoners by midnight tonight, November 7. However, Mrs. Reina Luisa Tamayo, mother of the renowned dead hunger striker dissident, Orlando Zapata Tamayo, has been detained again after allegedly having been brutally beaten by Castro's security forces last week as she headed to the cemetery where her son is interred.

At least 13 of the 75 detained in 2003 remain imprisoned as I write. Some of these are known to have insisted they wished to remain in Cuba and refused to be banished into exile.

RELATED

Plot Thickens on Castro's Political Prisoner Release - Part II

Plot Thickens on Castro's Political Prisoner Release

Castro Says Leave But Some Say No

What does Castro want from Obama...as he attacks US imperialism and shifts focus to Bay of Pigs and School of the Americas- Part III

Will Castro Break His Promise?

2010-11-07T19:17:00.007-05:00

Updated HERE.

Hispanic Reason To Vote

2010-11-02T15:03:00.006-04:00

Constituting 15.4% of the US population, Hispanics are in a position to help shape how the US is governed as no other minority in history. They are over ten percent (10%) of the eligible voters in nine states and an even more significant portion in larger states such as Texas, California, Florida and New York. But will they vote tomorrow and in a manner consistent with their traditional values?

According to a Pew Institute report only one-third (32%) of eligible Hispanic voters appear to be intending to vote. If this is true, why is it the case? Surely registered Hispanic voters appreciate the power of their numbers as voters (see table below). Surely they appreciate the price that has been paid by Americans to protect the privilege of a democratic vote and what happens when a people are prevented from doing so (e.g. Cubans). Furthermore, they have a superb reason to vote: helping end abortion in the United States.

Furthermore, the Pew Institute reports that two-thirds (69%) of Catholic Hispanics and almost half (45%) of Protestant Hispanics apparently intend to vote for Democrats, and therefore, I would add, against pro-Life candidates. How can this be? Protecting the family is a preeminent Hispanic value. Surely Hispanics understand that human life begins its path at conception (ask doubters where else it begins if not there?) and that destroying human life, while still legal, is indeed murder. Surely they know that 1.2 million Americans were therefore murdered in the United States in 2009 through an abortion. Surely the vast majority of Hispanics do not support this.

Perhaps it would make a difference if they knew that they have been disproportionately impacted by abortion. According to the US Center for Disease control there are, tragically enough, 13 abortions for every 1000 white non-Hispanic women, but 27 and 49 for every thousand Hispanic or Black women respectively. Why are relatively more Hispanic and black human embryos being aborted?

How many Hispanics know that in Miami, for example, more than 1 out of every 3 pregnant women (over 35%) aborted their child from 2000 to 2007? For all Florida, however, 1 out of every 4 pregnant (25%) women aborted. What is causing the comparatively higher Hispanic abortion rate in Miami? To what extent is this phenomenon characteristic of other regions with a high concentration of Hispanics?

If the number of Hispanics being aborted were proportional to their population in the United States, then around 180 thousand Hispanic embryos are being killed by abortion each year (15% of 1.2 million). But according to the Guttmacher Institute Hispanics account for 22% of US abortions. This means 264 thousand abortions of Hispanic embryos in 2008. Blacks accounted for 37% or 444 thousand abortions. Almost 2 out 3 embryos being aborted in the U.S. (59%) are thus either Black or Hispanic.

How could family loving Hispanics be doing this? Is it the result of heavy advertising by well funded organizations such as Planned Parenthood or the moral indifference to abortion of Univision TV?

I don´t pretend that other serious issues caused by egotism and even hatred towards Hispanic immigrants don't exist. But Hispanics should put aside all other considerations and cast a vote that will help protect the most vulnerable, a vote that will please the educated conscience and God. The quantity of Hispanics killed by abortion incomparably exceeds those that may have been killed by illegal immigration.

What are Catholic and Protestant Hispanics waiting for to vote for a Pro Life candidate tomorrow? What could be more important than this?

PRO LIFE VOTING GUIDE BY STATE -- Find out who the pro-life House, Senate and Governor candidates in your state are here.

RATES OF ABORTION BY STATE MAY BE FOUND HERE.

VERSIÓN EN ESPAÑOL - SPANISH VERSION

Sources:

Guttmacher Institute

"Abortions by Selected Characteristics: 1990 to 2005", US Census as quoted by Guttmacher Institute

"Hispanic Protestants Closely Divided ... Hispanic Catholics Favor Democrats", Pew Hispanic Center

"Resident Population by Race, Hispanic Origin...2008", U.S. Census

Plot Thickens on Castro's Political Prisoner Release - Part II

2010-10-20T18:43:00.008-04:00

Guillermo Fariñas is the latest Cuban dissident to weigh in on the release of Cuba´s political prisoners which Mr. Raul Castro promised to complete by November 7, just after U.S. mid term elections. Upon hearing of Mr. Castro´s March 28 promise to release all political prisoners, the Cuban dissident immediately suspended his 125 day hunger and water strike which had been aimed at obtaining the release of the most ill. But now he´s announced that he´s ready to resume it if Mr. Castro does not keep his promise.

The doubt however is not whether Castro will release them but whether he will allow them to remain in Cuba and respect their human rights.

For what would happen if the Castros do not allow them to remain in Cuba (outside of prison) but they refuse to leave their homeland? Will the Castros force them into a third country? That would seem to be a violation of international law and therefore unlikely.

What if they keep them in prison? That would make the Castros appear as liars in front of the world, not anything new, but it would also further diminish any chances they may have for the easing of U.S. tourist travel laws.

If the Castros allow them to remain but do not respect their rights a confrontation is bound to happen. That's where the Castros and their opponents are probably heading.

It doesn't seem that the Castros can see beyond, that is, to free them and respect their inalienable right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to travel within and outside of Cuba, etc. Perhaps they can only see that by doing something like that they would risk the dissidents publicly calling for a constitutional assembly, elections, etc. In such a scenario, of course, both Castros could end up being charged and tried.

Or maybe the inevitably aging Castros will finally want to begin negotiating an exit for themselves and their families or some other viable end to this 51 year old conflict.

Mr. Fariñas is one of three finalists for the European Parliament´s Sájarov prize, awarded annually to a defender of human rights. Two other Cuban dissidents, Oswaldo Payá and the Ladies in White, were awarded the prize in 2002 and 2005, respectively. Mr. Fariñas has not given up on his hunger strike strategy despite the fact that several dissidents (and this blog´s author) have expressed their disapproval of his suicidal liberation method.

UPDATE October 21

Today, the European parliament awarded Mr. Fariñas the Sájarov Prize for his defense of human rights. There is no question that Mr. Fariñas had valiantly stood up for human rights prior to beginning his suicidal hunger and thirst strikes. Indeed, he was beaten up for it more than once. Only later did his protests take this suicidal turn. Hopefully this award will not encourage him and other Cubans or humans to commit suicide in order to protest human rights abuses anywhere.

Castro of course agrees with his opponents presumed ´right´ to commit suicide.

RELATED

Plot Thickens on Castro's Political Prisoner Release

Castro's Cuban Media vs. Dying Hunger Striker

Castro Regime and Dissident Agree on 'Right' to Suicide
UPDATED: Bioethics À la Carte for the Castro Regime?

Political Opponent, Potential Suicidée or Common Criminal?

Plot Thickens on Castro's Political Prisoner Release

2010-10-19T12:54:00.010-04:00

Cuban political prisoner Guido Sigler Amaya has accused Roman Catholic Cardinal Ortega of pressuring him, in collusion with the Castro regime, to accept release from prison and banishment to either Mexico or Czechoslovakia. Mr. Sigler bases his accusation on his allegation that the Cardinal has repeatedly called to ask him to accept the offer. But he has announced that he will not make any decisions until he finds himself free inside Cuba. His brother, Juan Francisco Sigler Amaya, reported the story.

At least 4 other political prisoners have refused to be released into exile: Diosdado González Marrero, Librado Linares, Oscar Elías Biscet and Angel Moya Acosta.

In addition, Mrs. Reina Luisa Tamayo, mother of the political prisoner who died in the regime's custody after an 86 day hunger strike, remains undecided about whether to accept the regime's offer of exile to the United States.

Meanwhile, the spokesperson for the Ladies in White, Laura Pollán, declared that the Castro regime is merely trying to eliminate all opposition on the island. She vowed to continue the Ladies´public protests until all political prisoners are released.

But what does that mean? Surely Messrs. Fidel Castro and Raul Castro are asking themselves the same question. According to Cardinal Ortega they promised that by November 7 they would release all political prisoners including 13 remaining of the 75 arrested in the "Black Spring" of 2003. Around 39 have been released through Cardinal Ortega's intercession but immediately transported out of Cuba, apparently with their consent, obtained while they were imprisoned.

By said date, Castro will have the results of U.S. elections and this will help him calculate his chances of getting the U.S. travel ban lifted, and if releasing political prisoners will help.

Also prior to US elections, the Obama Administration has been trying to win the release of American Alan Gross, accused of espionage, and in a Cuban prison. Washington maintains that he was only distributing computing and telecommunications equipment to members of Cuba's tiny Jewish community. Release of Mr. Gross, because he's an American citizen and innocent, is politically most important for the Obama administration. However, whatever policy is utilized by the Obama administration with respect to Mr. Gross will set a precedent if other American citizens, including those with dual U.S.-Cuban citizenship are arrested by the Castro regime in the future.

As for Cuba's political prisoners, they are only stuff for barter for Mr. Castro. President Obama should not bite the poisonous apple and offer anything for them, let alone finance the Castro regime with US tourist dollars in return for their release. They should be freed because they are innocent, and because Mr. Castro supposedly promised as much.

RELATED

Castro Says Leave But Some Say No

What does Castro want from Obama...as he attacks US imperialism and shifts focus to Bay of Pigs and School of the Americas- Part III

UPDATED: Broken But Not Defeated

2010-10-17T08:04:00.005-04:00

Two Cuban dissident wives of political prisoners, members of the Ladies in White have resurfaced marching just one week after having been beaten up, albeit one with a bandaged broken nose and the other with an arm in a cast. Men and German Shepherds from Castro's security apparatus reportedly approached them on October 10, attempted to strip them and then beat them. According to Miscelaneas de Cuba, Mrs. Sonia Garro Alfonso and Mrs. Mercedes Fresneda Castillo were able to prevent being raped by their screams and the intervention of people nearby. One allegedly had her bra forcefully removed.

Mrs. Sonia Garro Alfonso & Mrs. Mercedes Fresneda Castillo,
Broken nose and arm, but not defeated
Photo taken from Miscelaneas de Cuba

Tragically,the strategy of appealing to the regime is wrong given that it recognizes Castro as a legitimate authority and places the decision of Cuba´s and their husbands' destinies in his tyrannical hands.

Yet protesting in public, while lonely and painful, has been one of the most perfect gestures offered by Cuba to purge itself of its 51 year disease.

But what would happen if the Ladies in White (or others) began demanding a trial for the Castro brothers? More likely than not Castro would order a mob led by state security to go after them.

For neither Castro can ever be judged. They are both above any law. At least, that's what they think.

Castro Says Leave But Some Say No

2010-10-16T17:07:00.013-04:00

The mother of the Cuban dissident dead from a hunger strike while in the Castro regime's prison custody, has been offered permission to leave Cuba. Unlike the United States, Cubans aren't allowed to leave or reenter their homeland without applying for permission from the tyranny. Permission is routinely denied to political opponents. The dead hunger striker's mother is undecided but has requested the remains of her son, Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who has become a national icon of the growing Cuban resistance movement.

His mother, Mrs. Reina Luisa Tamayo, is now an event too. She is a member of the renowned Ladies in White and a highly vocal critic of the tyranny. In the photograph below she is on the floor struggling against Castro's state security while protesting her son's death.

Mrs. Reina Luisa Tamayo (on the ground) vs.
Castro's State Security After Hunger Striker Son's Death

In a related development, 4 other political prisoners have been offered banishment into exile, but they have refused. According to Marti Noticias, Diosdado González Marrero, Librado Linares, Oscar Elías Biscet and Angel Moya Acosta refuse to leave Cuba voluntarily. Mrs. Alejandrina García de la Riva, Mr. Gonzalez Marrero's wife, reported (audio) that her husband had been contacted by Cardinal Jaime Ortega who inquired whether they wanted to leave the country.

After responding that he didn't, Mr. Gonzalez Marrero asked the Cardinal why political prisoners were only being released into exile. The Cardinal allegedly responded that all those who have been exiled would soon be free in their own homeland.

UPDATE

The video below from October 1 reveals how some have been inspired to begin taking a public stand for freedom while others appear to absolutely ignore them. They were reported to have subsequently been surrounded by a mob led by state security in an 'act of repudiation'.

RELATED:

Ladies in White: "We´re Not Afraid of You"

Siege on Dissident Cubans Lifted But Pushed to Leave

2010-10-12T19:13:00.015-04:00

Radio Marti has just reported that the siege on the Cuban family was lifted this morning. No explanation was provided as to what motivated the Castro regime to do so, or to have led a mob to besiege them in the first place. But Mrs. Rodriguez, the lady of the house, had this to say:

"...They don't tell us why. They only incite people to scream at us 'worms', mercenaries', go away, and all of the phrases that the whole world already knows. But they don't explain why."

But they don't need to, for as everyone knows, a tyranny does not consider itself accountable to anyone, let alone its subjects. Cuba's is backed by a well paid mob-o-cracy, and some day may possibly be even financed by United States tourists.

What happened to these people is similar to what happens to illegal Hispanic immigrants in the United States, except that they are not illegal or immigrants. They are natives, legitimately in their own country, and yet are being asked, in not very nice terms, to leave.

The Golden Rule dictates that Americans who don't ever want something like this happening to them in the United States should not support a tyranny that does it to Cubans.

UPDATE OCTOBER 18

The following photos seemingly taken after the siege have just been published. Note the reversed Cuban flag on the second photo.

9 year old dissident family´s son reportedly struck by Cuban State Security/Mob
Photo taken from Miscelaneas de Cuba

Besieged family and the members of the oriental branch of the
Partido Democrático 30 de Noviembre Frank País

Photo taken from Miscelaneas de Cuba

Cuban Dissident Family Besieged by Mob ... Day 3

2010-10-12T15:49:00.007-04:00

The mother of a Cuban family under siege confirmed today that their home in Guantanamo continues surrounded by a Castro regime led mob. Asked to describe what was presently happening, she responded : “...all you have to do is look out the window...can you hear them...even though it's drizzling they continue surrounding the complete house... from corner to corner.. one can see the police cars....everything is blocked...” The family of 3 has been under siege since 5 A.M. of October 10.

Mrs. Rosaina Ramirez is at their home in Guantanamo, Cuba, alone with her husband, Mr. Rogelio Tabio Lopez, a former political prisoner and their 9 year old son. The mob managed to break in yesterday but were forced to retreat by Mr. Tabio Lopez and his machete. The interview today was reportedly conducted by Antonio Diaz, who identified himself as a member of the Christian Liberation Movement. Mrs. Ramirez identified herself as a member of the 30 de Noviembre Social Democratic party. Not surprisingly, she volunteered her home address: Carlos Manuel 351, Esq. 6 Norte, Guantanamo, Cuba.

The family reported no visits or calls from international reporters.

RELATED

UPDATE - Mob Terrorizes Cuban Dissident Family

News Blackout on Cuban Family Under Siege

Google Hides Abuses in Cuba (Again)

News Blackout on Cuban Family Under Siege

2010-10-12T10:24:00.007-04:00

Except for the video below, there have been no further reports from Cuba on the Cuban family under siege since 5 AM, October 10 by a pro Castro mob. Presumably the siege continues. The video was published today by Directorio Cubano.

RELATED:

UPDATE - Mob Terrorizes Cuban Dissident Family

Google Hides Abuses in Cuba (Again)

Google Hides Abuses in Cuba (Again)

2010-10-11T22:14:00.004-04:00

Google has pushed to near obscurity the unfolding story of a Cuban dissident family under siege by a mob of 500. While the story has been reported by several blogs, one can hardly find it in Google. Why so if not because Google's algorithms tip the scales to hide from view human rights abuses in Cuba? Those reporting life threatening abuses shouldn't have to word stories so that Google accepts them. That's censorship. Google is the one that needs to change its algorithms to prioritize reporting of abuses in Cuba. Would it ever have hidden a story like this about a family under siege by a mob in Silicon valley? Of course not. So what is motivating it to do so with Cuba?

The following are the stories I found in the first page of a Google news or blog search using “Cuba” as the search term, at 8PM on October 10, several hours after blogs started reporting the family under siege:

As of today, October 11 at 8PM:

Google's top 10 “Cuba” Blog stories

Liz Neumark: A Taste of Cuba
VA - Musica de Cuba [2CDs] » RSMatrix RapidShare - MegaUpload free
Cuba looks ready to allow small loans for reforms | Antigua ...
News flash: Cuba
Free | free three prisoners in Cuba 52 operations, not to church
Sparks recounts meeting with Castro for Cuba Week | The Crimson White
Brazil beat Cuba to seal third straight world title - Stabroek ...
Watch Cuba vs Brazil live stream free online streaming Oct 10
Capitol Hill Cubans: Will Democrats Reject Chamber's Cuba Policy?
International Political Economy Zone: Vile Capitalists Invade Cuba ...

Google's top 10 “Cuba” News stories

Brazil Defeats Cuba, Regains World Championship Title
Four injured following single vehicle crash near Cuba
Experts examine how Cuba's offshore oil could be 'game changer'
Cuba looks ready to allow small loans for reforms
Pan Am Update: Unbeaten US Faces Cuba On Monday
A Taste of Cuba
Sparks kicks off UA's Cuba Week
Cuba To Free 3 More Political Prisoners
Ahmadinejad stresses employment of Iran-Cuba potentials to boost ties
Horse and buggy struck by allegedly intoxicated woman

UPDATE - Mob Terrorizes Cuban Dissident Family

2010-10-11T18:10:00.031-04:00

A Cuban dissident family in Guantanamo, Cuba has been attacked and is under siege by a pro-Castro mob of around 500 people. In a near panic state the family's mother alleges that her 9 year old son was struck in the face and that another dissident has been kidnapped.

The last heard is that the mob, which had been rattling the iron barred gates protecting her house, finally broke in while shouting through loudspeakers and hurling eggs and rocks at the property. Although some are armed with iron bars and sticks, they were effectively forced to retreat by the family's father wielding a machete. The mob is allegedly led by Castro's State Security forces attempting to stop a meeting of regime opponents that had been scheduled to meet at the family's home.

The story was first reported by Oswaldo Paya, leader of the Christian Liberation Movement, who also noted that Cuba's Military 'Junta' had just designated October 6 as Anti State Terrorism Day. Through his website he is asking the international media to go to the scene of the siege located at:

Carlos manuel de Cespedes #351 and corner of 6 Norte
Guantanamo, Cuba

He is also asking for international solidarity to stop this “Act of Repudiation” on the family and appealing for help from heads of all nations which oppose terrorism, international human rights organizations and Pope Benedict XVI.

Having began on October 10 at 5:00 A.M. the act of repudiation is now past its 36th hour.

------------------------
Also on Sunday, two of the renowned Ladies in White reported having been beaten by Cuban State Security forces after having protested in Havana. According to Diario de Cuba, Sonia Garro Alfonso and Mercedes Fresneda Castillo were holding up a blanket that read "Down with racism and up with human rights", when they were shoved into a police car. One suffered a broken wrist and the other a broken nasal bridge. The officers that struck them were reportedly men. When they eventually went to a hospital for treatment they were refused a copy of the medical report. Both ladies are black.
-------------------------

The Castro regime recently forced several political prisoners into exile and promised there are more to come. It has also reached out to Israel while chastising Iran's Ahmadinejad for his denial of the holocaust in an apparent attempt to soften U.S. public opinion and help enable passage of U.S. legislation that would bring an estimated 2 million U.S. tourists to Cuba and $2 billion to the bankrupt regime.

UPDATE 11:56 PM

Dissident Vladimiro Roca has now also been detained and reported missing by Radio Martí, also as of this past Sunday. He is the son of the founder of the Cuban Communist Party.

UPDATE OCTOBER 12 12:13 AM

According to Europapress, Vladimiro Roca has been released.

UPDATE OCTOBER 12 - 12:30 AM

No further news is available on the family of 3 under siege by a regime backed mob. Thus is Cuba, oscillating silently and invisibly between tyranny and mob-ocracy. Google doesn't care. Neither does Bing. Jerry Brown thinks it's paradise or some kind of model to be revered or something like that. So do some US Congressmen but for other reasons ($$). It's just what the United States needs to be, other luminaries will claim, with straight, earnest faces. Good night.

RELATED

Audio of Mother's report (details emerge after first 4 1/2 minutes)

Oswaldo Paya's Audio report

Still No Political Prisoner Releases in Cuba Several political prisoners have been released into exile; none have been allowed to live freely in Cuba. Therefore, none have been 'freed', as had been announced on behalf of (and apparently as a courtesy to) the regime, by the Catholic Church.

Cuba Travel Vote Postponed

2010-09-29T19:15:00.002-04:00

According to The Hill, the House Foreign Relations Committee's vote on Cuba Travel, H.R. 4645, was indefinitely postponed because of insufficient supporting votes. Nothing was said about when they would attempt again. They probably want to catch everyone off guard before holding it (and hold on to their congressional seats as well). So we'll probably (thankfully) have to wait until after the November 2010 elections.

In the meantime, you might want to take a look at these stories if you haven't already done so:

From Reuters via Capitol Hill Cubans
Cuban Military Prepares for Berman's Bailout

From the Wall Street Journal -- Mary O'Grady of the Wall Street Journal tells it much more eloquently than me.
Weekend at Fidel's

From The Atlantic Part III
Castro: 'No One Has Been Slandered More Than the Jews' -- In this article, Journalist Goldberg, following Fidel Castro's explicit instructions, helps him reach out to Israel and to U.S. Jews, hopefully to erase all of his (and Chavez's) past slurs. Israel, of course, always needs friends, but specially now in the middle of the Palestinian talks. Thus, Benjamin Netanyahu and Simone Perez immediately reciprocated by thanking the Cuban tyrant while completely putting aside the 51 year plight of the Cuban people. (Everyone else does it, right? Even some U.S. Republicans and almost all Latin Americans do it. Well, why not us?) Castro scratched their back so perhaps now they will be motivated to help him get this Cuba Travel bill passed; something the Palestinians would never have been able to accomplish.

From The Atlantic -- Part II

Fidel Tries To Wiggle Out of One

From The Atlantic - Part I
Fidel: 'Cuban Model Doesn't Even Work For Us Anymore'...retracted days later...see link above this one. A tyrant is a tyrant. This particular one (and now his brother, the latter says) controls everything in Cuba, like, hmmm, all media. He can say whatever he wishes and later retract as many times as he wants.

For example, one of Castro's first promises, 51 years ago, was to restore Cuba's 1940 democratic Constitution, the one Batista had violated through his 1952 coup of a legitimately democratic government (Prío). At the time (1959), Castro also promised immediate legitimate elections, unlike the illegitimate ones Batista held after his coup.

Instead, like Batista but far worst, Castro ruled by decree for 27 years, created an absolutely militarized totalitarian state and pushed through his bogus 1976 constitution guaranteeing 'the revolution', that is, him, absolute rights.

Nonetheless, there are now some in the United States who want to help him. That's not what they say of course. He is bankrupt but they want to finance him. It's just a trick, they imply. Their real intent, they claim, is to free Cubans from tyranny.

Something similar took place with Batista after his coup, that is, President Truman and subsequently President Eisenhower supported him. Why? Would President Lincoln ever have supported a Batista or a Castro?

No. I don´t think anyone could argue that, except slave owners. That´s part of what is really happening today. There are those who will significantly financially benefit from resuscitating Castro´slave state. They have sales contracts and their calculation is that if they enable Castro to bring in hundreds of millions of U.S. tourist dollars, he will be able to purchase, and most importantly, pay for the U.S. goods they want to sell him. Right now Castro can´t pay them, and so their exports have significantly dropped. The argument is logical but only if one reasons in a vacuum, that is, if one dismisses the fact that US Travel dollars will effectively enable the Castro regime to continue denying the Cuban people their most basic rights. I'm referring to those all Americans hold most dear.

Another reason to support him, of course, is that one is a Marxist, that is, one would want to import Castro´s system to the U.S. in whole or in part. Many of those who support him fall in this category, or they are naive temporary Marxists.

Both slave owner clones and Marxists will go to absurd extremes to convince one that free travel and trade with Cuba will end the tyranny, or even that there is nothing seriously or fundamentally wrong with the Cuban regime. But they know it's not true.

They will allude to renowned Cuban dissidents such as Ms. Yoani Sanchez or Mr. Guillermo Fariñas, and to their support for legal U.S. travel to Cuba even if it means financing Castro. My response is that any dissident who supports financing Castro, as US citizens traveling to Cuba most surely will, is either naive (the most likely explanation and what explains almost all cases), or partly irrational, or is deriving some hidden personal benefit, or, the unspeakable: they are on his payroll. I don't believe the latter is the case with either of these highly idealistic dissidents.

One other spuriously Kantian and naively idealistic argument is that one can't deny others a right one wants respected for one's self. Thus, if Cubans want for themselves the right to travel to the U.S. they must support the supposedly equivalent right of US citizens to travel to Cuba. But that's comparing apples to oranges and only a very naive person would not realize as much. Cubans can't travel anywhere without the tyranny's permission which is almost always denied. Thousands have risked their lives, and died, attempting to escape by sea. Those that are allowed to travel must request permission to return before one year lapses or their homes are taken away. In addition, they may not even be allowed to return, even to visit their parents or children. Those who are not permitted to travel (almost all) must remain their lives trapped inside an island surrounded by powerful waves, currents and sharks, unable to change their leaders and forced to work for an average of $18 per month in whatever the tyrannical regime assigns or permits, or else risk illegal work. B.F. Skinner's daughter's cage was paradise compared to this.

US citizens can travel almost anywhere and return when they wish. That's why what Cubans are subjected to is simply inconceivable to Americans; and why some naively compare situations. The right of an American to travel to Cuba cannot be paid for by Cubans living under a tyranny. In the hierarchy of human rights, Cubans' right to the fundamental freedoms all Americans enjoy supersedes the right of Americans to travel to Cuba. Furthermore no country or people (including Americans) has the right to finance a tyranny. That would be a crime against humanity, and against a particular people, not a right.

Once Cuba is free, all Americans should of course be welcomed.

Good and reasonable Americans will be concerned about their Cuban neighbors in Cuba and Florida while praying, voting and acting such that a tragedy like the one the Cubans have faced for 51 years never strikes the United States.

RELATED:
House panel delays action on Cuba bill

U.S. Senate Closer to Financing Cuba's Tyranny - UPDATED

H.R. 4645: Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act

Castro's Cuban Media vs. Dying Hunger Striker

2010-07-06T13:44:00.006-04:00

Granma, the Cuban media monopoly's flagship news service has published a 2171 word interview of a dying Cuban hunger striker's doctor which fails to mention the motives for the strike. Instead, the doctor presents himself as frankly perplexed by the dissident's suicidal choice. After all, he philosophically muses, "...he is privileged, like all of our patients. He has a 24 hour companion ... a television where he watches the World Cup...and a telephone...these are important conveniences for a patient's spirituality."

Thus placing the blame for his expected and probable death squarely on dissident Guillermo Fariñas' shoulders, Dr. Armando Caballero, Chief of Intensive Therapy at a Santa Clara hospital adds that ..."only his desire could be an important medical factor in the solution to his problem." This is a remarkably inaccurate assertion, for while intent on killing himself unless his demands are met, Guillermo Fariñas has never claimed that he desires to die. All the contrary, he specifically blames the Castro dictators for his forthcoming death, and is ready to immediately cease the suicidal hunger strike if the latter unconditionally release the most ill of Cuba's political prisoners.

The good doctor is of course also a victim of the Castro brothers' repression. Accordingly, he dared not discuss why he believes his patient desires death or mention the political prisoners whose lives he is trying to save, through what is arguably suicidal blackmail. Instead, he spent much of the interview detailing the numerous, sophisticated and costly medical tactics that have been used to help extend his life to what is now over 125 days without eating orally. Of course, if Fariñas' demand were granted, as it should be, because whatever else it may be, it is just, then the good doctor will not need to save his life any longer, and the medical costs will cease.

U.S. Senate Closer to Financing Cuba's Tyranny - UPDATED

2010-03-27T14:09:00.061-04:00

Utterly disregarding the impact on U.S. tourism and the Castro tyranny's continued assault on the most basic human rights of Cubans, the U.S. Senate is inching closer to passing what is known as S. 428 or The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act. This law would prohibit President Obama from preventing the travel of (non Cuban) U.S. citizens and residents to Cuba, unless he were to veto it.

"Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act - Prohibits the President from regulating or prohibiting travel to or from Cuba by U.S. citizens or legal residents or any of the transactions ordinarily incident to such travel..."

Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota claims a mayority of 60 U.S. Senators support its passage, and the following 39 are public about it (34 Democrats, 4 Republicans, 1 Independent):

John Barrasso [R-WY], Max Baucus [D-MT],Michael Bennet [D-CO] (withdrawn), Jeff Bingaman [D-NM], Barbara Boxer [D-CA], Roland Burris [D-IL], Robert Byrd [D-WV], Maria Cantwell [D-WA], Benjamin Cardin [D-MD], Thomas Carper [D-DE], Susan Collins [R-ME], Kent Conrad [D-ND], Michael Crapo [R-ID], Christopher Dodd [D-CT], Byron Dorgan [D-ND], Richard Durbin [D-IL], Michael Enzi [R-WY], Russell Feingold [D-WI], Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] , Al Franken [D-MN], Kay Hagan [D-NC], Thomas Harkin [D-IA], Tim Johnson [D-SD], John Kerry [D-MA], Amy Klobuchar [D-MN], Mary Landrieu [D-LA], Patrick Leahy [D-VT], Carl Levin [D-MI], Blanche Lincoln [D-AR], Richard Lugar [R-IN], Claire McCaskill [D-MO], Patty Murray [D-WA], Mark Pryor [D-AR], John Reed [D-RI], Bernard Sanders [I-VT], Jon Tester [D-MT], Mark Udall [D-CO], Tom Udall [D-NM], Jim Webb [D-VA], Ron Wyden [D-OR]

The travel legislation is now being considered in various sub-committees, including the one that oversees human rights. Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA], known for her support of ´progressive´ causes, is the Chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee and is therefore likely to support it. She is also 1 of 11 on the Foreign Relations Subcommittee.

Like Senator Boxer, Senators Kerry, Lugar and Barrasso are supporters of the bill and the 4 are on both the Foreign Relations and Human Rights subcommittees. Supporters such as Sen. Russell and Sen. Dodd are also on the Foreign Relations Subcommittee. Thus, at least a 6-5 majority in the Foreign Relations subcommittee supports it.

U.S. tourists should be putting their money where it will bring good, not evil, to themselves and their neighbors.

Wouldn't it be ethical (unlike this bill) and also far better for the U.S. economy, if U.S. tourists spent their money in Florida, Puerto Rico or Hawaii? Wouldn't $2 billion of tourist expenditures in a U.S. tourist destination be the real win win? Why then are the foregoing senators working so hard to increase tourism for Castro? Do they prefer that US Tourists spend their money in Cuba instead? Why? Why are they obsessed with diverting Caribbean bound tourists from Puerto Rico and Florida to Cuba?

I don't notice the senators from Hawaii and Florida, or the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico backing a bill that would potentially deprive them of income from at least 1 million tourists annually, in order to give it to a tyrant. Aren't the senators aware that tourism has been decreasing in all of these areas? Of course they are. Just this month, on March 4, President Obama signed a bill to promote tourism in the U.S.

"Obama said there is no better country to visit than the United States ...flanked by lawmakers from Nevada and other tourism states.

"The bill enjoyed bipartisan support and has been pushed since the country experienced a precipitous decline in overseas visitors after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The travel industry estimates that more than 600,000 fewer overseas visitors are coming to the country, contributing to economic losses...

"The bill is expected to create 40,000 jobs nationwide in the first year."

Yet the foregoing list of Senators are joining hands to push a bill that diverts US tourists to Cuba's tyranny instead.

At least the Senators could have been thinking of helping Haiti develop a tourist industry. Haiti is receiving massive U.S. assistance and its people need jobs, right? How about investing to build Haiti's tourism infrastructure? Why aren't the senators spending the time allocated to Cuba Travel for Americans, to a bill that would create incentives for U.S. tourism investments in Haiti? Imagine the good that could bring. Wouldn't the American people prefer that over financing a tyranny? Where are the 'Promote Travel to Haiti' or 'Haiti Tourism' bills? I don't see them here. Wouldn't working on a bill like that for Haiti also help compensate for $700 million in disaster assistance, in addition to helping it become self sustaining?

Americans who don't agree with financing tyranny should write to their senator now, even if he/she is not on the foregoing list.

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 27, 2010

The Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives may vote on the latter's version of this bill, H.R. 4645, this coming Wednesday, September 27. The House version is sponsored by Rep. Collin Peterson [D-MN]. If you don´t agree with financing and resuscitating the moribund Castro tyranny with U.S. tourist dollars or diverting Florida's, Hawaii's and Puerto Rico's tourism to Cuba, fax or email your Congressman without delay. The names of the 10 Republicans and 66 Democrats co sponsoring this initiative at the U.S. House of Representatives are as follows: :

Rodney Alexander [R-LA5],Tammy Baldwin [D-WI2], Howard Berman [D-CA28], Robert Berry [D-AR1], Judy Biggert [R-IL13], Sanford Bishop [D-GA2], Timothy Bishop [D-NY1], John, Boozman [R-AR3], Leonard Boswell [D-IA3], Frederick Boucher [D-VA9], Charles Boustany [R-LA7], Bobby Bright [D-AL2], Michael Capuano [D-MA8], André Carson [D-IN7]
Travis Childers [D-MS1], Jim Costa [D-CA20], Lincoln Davis [D-TN4], William Delahunt [D-MA10], Rosa DeLauro [D-CT3], Michael Doyle [D-PA14], Thomas Edwards [D-TX17], Keith Ellison [D-MN5], Brad Ellsworth [D-IN8], Jo Ann Emerson [R-MO8], Anna Eshoo [D-CA14],Sam Farr [D-CA17], Jeff Flake [R-AZ6], Al Green [D-TX9], Raul Grijalva [D-AZ7], Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D-SD], Baron Hill [D-IN9], Maurice Hinchey [D-NY22], Tim Holden [D-PA17], Michael Honda [D-CA15], Jesse Jackson [D-IL2], Eddie Johnson [D-TX30], Henry Johnson [D-GA4], Timothy Johnson [R-IL15], Walter Jones [R-NC3], Steve Kagen [D-WI8], Ronald Kind [D-WI3], Rick Larsen [D-WA2],Barbara Lee [D-CA9], David Loebsack [D-IA2], Carolyn Maloney [D-NY14], Edward Markey [D-MA7]
Eric Massa [D-NY29], Jim Matheson [D-UT2], Doris Matsui [D-CA5], Betty McCollum [D-MN4], James McGovern [D-MA3], Walter Minnick [D-ID1], James Moran [D-VA8], Jerry Moran [R-KS1], James Oberstar [D-MN8], John Olver [D-MA1], Solomon Ortiz [D-TX27], Ronald Paul [R-TX14], Chellie Pingree [D-ME1], Jared Polis [D-CO2], Earl Pomeroy [D-ND], Laura Richardson [D-CA37], Mike Ross [D-AR4], Bobby Rush [D-IL1], Timothy Ryan [D-OH17], Janice Schakowsky [D-IL9], David Scott [D-GA13], José Serrano [D-NY16]
Victor Snyder [D-AR2], John Spratt [D-SC5], John Tanner [D-TN8], Gene Taylor[D-MS4], Edolphus Towns [D-NY10], Timothy Walz [D-MN1], Maxine Waters [D-CA35], Lynn Woolsey [D-CA6]

UPDATED ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 HERE

TOURISM IN FLORIDA, HAWAII AND PUERTO RICO:

Hawaii - Tourism went down to 6.5 million visitors, or 4.5 %, in 2009.

Puerto Rico Occupancy rates are down to a mere 66%, and in 2009 there were 1.8 million tourists, 200K less than in 2006.

Florida's tourist visits decreased by 3.4% to 18.1 million visitors in the last quarter of 2009.

From which of these are the (at least) 1 million tourists to Cuba going to be taken from?

UPDATE:

NOTE ON GOOGLE'S IDEA OF RELEVANCE:

Yesterday, March 27, one could hardly find this post if one entered 'Cuba' in Google's blog. Yet, if one entered ' Cuba travel' it was ranked number 1 in relevance most of the day.

On March 28 one cannot find it even among the first 5 pages after entering 'Cuba travel', but the others that were behind it are right there. It's unclear what relevance means to Google if it can vanish instantly. Any ideas?

UPDATE

I think I may have figured part of what 'relevancy' means to Google, with respect to Cuba.

Now the 4th most relevant post on Cuba and 12th most relevant on Cuba Travel is Top Resorts in Varadero, Cuba, by Cheap Mommy.

Google's number one ranked blog post for Cuba today is HAITI Signs MOU with Cuba and Brazil Regarding Public Health Programs. It supposedly quotes Haiti's president but one cannot distinguish what he declared from what the post's author added, for the quotes are not even closed, and the subject of the supposed quote is not even quoted! This is it:

He celebrated the fact that Haiti can also count on Brazil’s collaboration, and noted that despite a 50-year-old blockade, Cuba “has always been willing to help. So this time, it will use Brazil’s resources and expertise to continue that work.

The author then added that Haiti's president supposedly also declared having heard someone say “Cuban doctors were after God”.

Frivolousness and Cheap Communist Propaganda is what relevancy means to Google, with respect to Cuba.

RELATED

The Win Win

Ladies in White Vs. Tyranny and Patrons

Remember this ´progressive´?

Ladies in White: "We´re Not Afraid of You"

Tyranny allows Cuban Dissident to Die of Hunger - What now?

Leaked photos of (26 or more) mental patients who presumably froze to death in Mazorra (Cuban hospital) January 9 - 13, 2010

Why Cuban Americans Are Traveling to Cuba and Further Thoughts

The Win-Win

2010-03-25T22:17:00.062-04:00

The Republican Governor of Georgia wants to do business with the tyranny in Cuba. After all, the Cuban tyranny breeds slaves which they force to work for $11-20 per month, and Georgia could feed them chicken and eggs, just like in the old days. In addition, the Governor is interested in that really lucrative tourist industry. He can feed the tourists too, and maybe even employ some Cuban (no, not American, so it's OK) slaves. It would be a win-win for Georgia and the Cuban tyranny.

Gee, if only the tyranny could release the American Jew they have detained for helping Cuban Jews. That could surely help clinch the U.S. Senate's approval to lift the travel ban too. Forget Batista and Castro: that would really be a coup. At least that's what Sen. Byron Dorgan (Democrat-North Dakota) thinks.

If only they could free this American Jew who was distributing computers to the Cuban (oops, Jewish) slaves, the consciences of Americans could work with the Cuban slave owners, just like it used to be (for some) in the United States. Count North Dakota in; it's a win win for their Senator too.

Comparing Cuba with China , the Senator argued it would be no different than what the U.S. does with that threat. Threats are apparently the only other issue, as far as this Senator is concerned. He didn't mention slavery or the grave violation of objective and universal human rights by the partners he proposes for North Dakotans. That's not their, or his problem, or of the United States in which he believes.

History repeats itself? Progress?

A Replica of "Amistad", the 19th century slave ship,
sails into Havana Harbor on March 25, 2010,

waving the flags of Cuba and The United States.

AP Photo/Franklin Reyes

Why Cuban Americans Are Traveling to Cuba and Further Thoughts

2010-03-25T21:23:00.025-04:00

Reuters has reported that Cuban-Americans are flying to Cuba by the plane loads. Citing the Cuban tyranny and a Miami travel agency respectively, it claims that 250 thousand U.S. based Cubans visited Cuba in 2009 and that said number is projected to grow to 300K this year. Diario de Cuba further reports that there were 170,000 Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba in 2008. Thus, Cuban American visitors increased by 47% in 2009.

Reading Reuters, however, one might think that Cuban Americans are perhaps ready to accept and finally live under tyranny; at least the 20% of 1.5 million Cuban Americans who is traveling to Cuba. One might think that justice and liberty are not really important to Cuban Americans; that despite all the noise they make, they are not firm with their values or lack dignity.

Surely that is not what Reuters intends to convey. They are only informing everyone of the travel facts, although its tone is perhaps one of glee, for it adds:

"With Cuban Americans emerging as Cuba's second-largest source of visitors after Canadians...(they) are an important source of dollars for the communist regime as it deals with the global economic downturn."

So, you see, Reuters seems to be suggesting that it's not just those 1 million Canadians (40% of Cuba's tourists) who are guilty of propping the tyranny up. It's the Cuban exiles themselves. Yes, the little scoundrels, the very ones who are supposedly against tyranny and against everyone else traveling.

Well, of course Cubans are financing the tyranny; indeed, they are its slaves. Isn't Reuters aware that the latter, and international partners such as Canada and Spain, employ Cubans for $11-20 per month? A tourist industry worker in Spain, Canada or Europe earns, at a minimum, US$ 2000 monthly, or 100 times what a Cuban is paid. In addition, Cubans are forced to work or go to prison. They are evidently enslaved by the tyranny and its partners, and slaves finance their masters. But some will counter that they are getting health care and education in return. Of course, this makes perfect sense. The tyranny needs the healthiest and most productive slaves possible, that is, except when they rebel. In such a case, they respect their right to suicide. Nor do they seem very interested in those they consider perennially unproductive, like the mental patients at Mazorra who presumably froze to death in early January, 2010.

Reuters, however, was not referring to those Cubans, but to the ones in Miami and the United States. How dare they go to Cuba. How dare they finance the tyranny, and yet criticize others for doing so. Don't these know they are not Cubans any more? Don't they know they are no more Cuban than Canadians or Spaniards? Cuban Americans, of course, are persons with dual US and Cuban citizenship. As Cubans they have always had the right of citizens to their place of birth. It doesn't matter what Reuters, the Castro tyranny or anyone else says or thinks.

Having hopefully clarified this point, one can then ask why are these Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba? Are they indifferent to financing tyranny or not?

Are some traveling there because they just want to see their birth place for the first time in perhaps 51 years (as I once did in 50 years)? If so, are they spending the most or the least possible?

Do some just wish to see their families or bring them goods? If so, are they staying with their families or at the tyranny's hotels?

Are they looking to bring democratic change to Cuba or not?

Or are some, or most, of those traveling to Cuba living in the U.S., but with Castro's blessings, as is the case in other parts of the world? Are they attempting to mix with the other exiles, and by traveling to Cuba, to discredit them?

How many fall into each category?

What about the other 1.2 million, or 80% of Cuban Americans? Are they planning to visit their enemy or not? For what reasons? Not that they need any.

These are some of the facts some news source might try to investigate.

RELATED:

OTHER SOURCES

Cuba's Tourism "Entrepreneurs"

INVISIBLE CUBA

Split between Cubans Deepens as They Debate Over Strategy and Attitudes

U.S. Citizen Denied Entry into the United States

The Morality of Lifting Restrictions on Cuba: The China Question, The China Lesson

The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Press Conference

What Cuba Means in Google

2010-03-23T20:57:00.034-04:00

If you enter the search term 'Cuba' in Google News, the free world's leading search engine immediately suggests the following options:

"Cuba earthquake 2010, Cuba news,Cuba Haiti, Cuba embargo, Cuba earthquake, Cuban, Cuba Travel, Cuba economy, Cuban news, Cuban cigars."

Thus, for a new arrival from outer space Google provides zero clues about what's been happening in Cuba for 51 years, except for the embargo.

Perhaps Google takes pride in being 'politically neutral', which it interprets as meaning no up front mentioning of "dictatorship", "elections", "human rights", "political prisoners", "Ladies in White", "Mazorra", "Zapata", "dissidents", "exiles", "liberation", "hunger strikes", "executions", "acts of repudiation", "civil liberties", "political police" etc., but essential to mention Cuba travel and "Cuba embargo", immediately.

Oh, and to hide or omit "exiles" or "exilio" too, as and wherever possible.

Google would perhaps argue that few searches for Cuba mention said terms but omit mentioning that a neophyte often doesn't know what to search for.

Google claims it has left China in protest of alleged Communist demands that it exercise self-censorship. Yet, notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, I think perhaps the Castros would love to talk business with Google.

COMPARABLES:

Iran for Google News - "news, punch, february 11, nuclear, israel, sanctions, protests, war, threat, feb 11

Iraq for Google News - "news, dinar, war, election, dinar revalue, dinar revaluation, dinar news, oil, economy, elections 2010"

UPDATE March 24, 2010 -- Well. Today Google removed "Cuba earthquake 2010" from its drop down --Let's Define Cuba For Searchers List-- but left "Cuba earthquake" (check for yourselves). Said deletion made space for a new defining term (only 10 allowed it seems). No, they didn't pick 'dictatorship', 'elections', 'political prisoners', 'dissidents', 'hunger strikes', etc. Instead they went with "Cuban Missile Crisis". (I remember watching it on TV from exile in New York.) Ah. How could they have forgotten. Castro wanted to shoot a nuclear warhead at the United States. Yes, Castro. The one so many in the U.S. and worldwide now defend. Good choice.

However, Cuban cigars continue to say more to Google about Cuba than tyrannies, executions and dead hunger strikers.

But there is hope. Maybe tomorrow.

UPDATE --March 28, 2010

Today Google web search defines Cuba as: cuban missile crisis, cubase, cubana lust, cuba gooding jr., cuba libre, cuba cigars, cuban sandwich, cuban revolution, cuban recipes, cuban food. All the ones in bold are different than the 10 terms it used to characterize Cuba when I first published this post 5 days ago on March 23.

Google web search thus grossly distorts by hiding the fact of tyranny in Cuba for 51 years.

´Cuba libre´is the best they could do, perhaps because it equally refers to a rum and coke.

How does Google come up with its blog search terms for Cuba? Only people´s searches? Therefore it can be controlled, from the outside, by an automated or human propaganda machine?

Ladies in White: "We´re Not Afraid of You"

2010-03-21T23:59:00.026-04:00

Protesting for a seventh consecutive day and now accompanied by dead hunger striker's Orlando Zapata Tamayo´s mother, Cuba's Ladies in White approached the socialist regime's 'national assembly'* and demanded the release of political prisoners. What follows is a translated excerpt of an audio taken from Radio Martì of the confrontation that took place on Sunday.

A woman shouts (probably Zapata Tamayo’s mother):

"A strong repression with offenses from the paramilitaries, State Security with terrible offenses...with terrible offenses...I scream at you...You’ve assassinated my Orlando Zapata Tamayo premeditatively...you took his water away...you assassinated my (Orlando) with premeditation.

"All you who listen, we will continue…here we go head on against repression…we are not afraid of you."

Many women shout:

"Zapata vive! Zapata vive! Zapata vive!"

A little later, another woman adds:

"...they surrounded us...military police with their blue uniforms...among them vulgar women, I sincerely hate to say so...Cuban women just like me...who conduct themselves in such form, no composure, so violent, saying many lies, because they have even offended Mrs. Reina Luisa (Zapata Tamayo's's mother), telling her, "I´m glad your son has died", and me saying: "Lord, forgive her, for she does not know what she is saying, for that boy was assassinated."(They) are as always directed by officers from State Security."

*The National Assembly of Popular Power, according to Castro's 1976 spurious constitution is home to the people’s ultimate representatives, all hand picked by the tyrant.

RELATED:

Complete Spanish audio of this confrontation -- from Radio Martí

UPDATED: Ladies in White Vs. Tyranny and Patrons

UPDATED: Ladies in White Vs. Tyranny and Patrons

2010-03-20T14:25:00.017-04:00

For a fifth straight day the wives of some 50 of Cuba´s political prisoners have been intercepted, supposedly by a mob, arrested and removed by force. Yet thus far only the European Parliament, the United States and Cubans have protested the assault. Does this mean that the rest of the world believes that what is being done to these ladies is right?

Given the lack of an independent judicial system in Cuba under Castro (unlike between 1940 and 1952), and after viewing the video below, does any one seriously doubt that there are political prisoners in Cuba?

Are those governments which are thus far silent trying to tell us it is right to prevent peaceful protests by force? If not, how then do they believe these ladies should make their grievances heard? Or do Africa, the Caribbean, Canada and Latin America not believe the ladies in white should be heard? Do they believe, like Cuba´s tyranny, that they should just shut up and stay home?

Could those who want the U.S. to lift its embargo and allow its citizens to travel to Cuba kindly point out the tourists or academics who were helping these ladies. Could they also explain how Castro´s tyranny could have survived without tourism, its main source of income?

The regime claims that 2 1/2 million tourists visited Cuba in 2009. Canadians, unabashed, accounted for almost 1 million, or 40%; followed by Spain (129K), Italy (117K), Germany(92K) and France(83K). The rest of the world contributed 897K tourists.

Jointly they provided the tyranny $2.1 billion CUC($2.2 billion dollars) in gross income. We don't know how much its foreign partners earned. However, given average salaries of US$11-15 per month for Cuban workers, net income for each partner is almost certainly without precedents, that is, since the slave era.

The tyranny's foreign ministry adds: "Investors from more than 40 countries have placed their capital in Cuba. Outstanding among them are: Spain, Canada, Italy, France and the United Kingdom."

When will these governments and tourists stop supporting Cuba's tyranny? What will it take?

¨This street is Fidel´s,¨ ´the mob´ screams at them

Cubaencuentro Sanitizes Pablo Milanes' Comments on Castro

2010-03-14T13:01:00.012-04:00

A day after Pablo Milanes declared that Castro must be condemned if Cuban dissident and hunger striker Guillermo Fariñas were to die, Cubaencuentro.com has reported it as if it was "the fact", that is, Fariñas' death, that would have to be condemned, thus portraying it as if Milanes was not condemning either Castro.

However, a simple analysis makes it fairly obvious that Milanés was intending a condemnation of Castro, if Fariñas dies, for he follows by saying: "Ideas are discussed, not imprisoned."

Nevertheless, towards the end of the interview, perhaps realizing what he has said, he apparently attempts to patch things up and even defends the Castros.

Here is an excerpt of the interview (my translation of original in Spanish):

5-What strike does Castro deserve if Fariñas were to die?

MILANES- Must be condemned from a human point of view. You don't do those things. Ideas are discussed, not imprisoned.

6- What have the revolutionaries done with the revolution?

MILANES- --Stayed fixed in time. And history must advance with ideas and new men. They have become reactionary to their own ideas. That's why I've said another revolution is needed, because we have little stains. The enormous sun born in 1959 has become full of stains proportional to its aging.

7- In which century will Cuba have its next elections?

MILANES- I'm not a soothsayer, I don't have a prophet's soul, but I would want it to be as soon as possible. More than elections, I would want change, for I don't believe in elections either. That's a "democratic game" (his quotes); that's also a farce.

+1 To which island would you take a deserted man?

MILANES- If I tell you, you'd laugh. To Cuba. To a Cuba with the Castros, but with adjustments.

Yet, Cubaencuentro's headline is:

"Pablo Milanés says that if Fariñas dies, the fact must be condemned."

It then reports it as:

"Cuban troubadour Pablo Milanés affirmed in an interview with Spanish newspaper El Mundo on Saturday, that one must condemn Guillermo Fariñas' death, from the human point of view, in case it happens."

Communist Cuban Musician Says Castro Should be Condemned If ...Sort of

2010-03-13T11:26:00.014-05:00

Renowned Communist Cuban singer Pablo Milanés has said that if Cuban dissident and hunger striker Gillermo Fariñas were to die, Castro should be "condemned from a human point of view...for those are things you don´t do." Now really.

Milanés didn´t explain which Castro he meant, or if the condemnation should be in a Cuban courtroom or just symbolic. Furthermore, he didn´t mention why Castro shouldn´t also be condemned for Orlando Zapata Tamayo´s death. Zapata Tamayo is the political prisoner who died on February 23 in a Cuban prison after a hunger strike lasting over 80 days. His death has caused the regime to be chastised by the United States, the European Parliament and even by allies and investors such as Costa Rica, Canada, France and Spain.

In the early 1970´s Milanés rose to fame on the tyranny´s coattails by sweetening and popularizing its image among youth with romantic masterpieces like "Yolanda", just like Hollywood today. So, unsurprisingly, the singer didn´t mention any of the other murders and crimes the Castro tyranny has been accused of during the past 51 years.

Nor should one wonder why Milanes also failed to criticize Castro´s unconstitutional dictatorship. He clarified that he didn´t believe in elections either! So one could even conclude that Milanés was actually doing his buddy tyrant a huge favor while on a regime financed tour.

Perhaps his declaration could even be interpreted as a plea for absolution, that is, in case the Castros don´t allow Fariñas to die, and if they are ever brought to justice in a legitimate Cuban courtroom.

UPDATED: Bioethics À la Carte for the Castro Regime?

2010-03-11T16:22:00.012-05:00

A 3 year old child is about to cross a busy avenue and will be certainly killed. One is in a position to pull him away. Should one reason with the child or immediately pull him out? Another case: an adult is about to jump off a 100 story building. One is in a position to successfully prevent him by using force. Should one try to reason with him even though this means he could jump, or immediately arrest him to save his life?

An ideological opponent is on a combined hunger and thirst strike, and will certainly go into shock or die unless he’s immediately arrested and forcefully hydrated and nourished intravenously. Should one wait for him to go into shock or die, or force him to be hospitalized, hydrated and nourished?

Cuban dissident hunger (and thirst) striker Guillermo Fariñas hasn't been hydrated in 8 days or eaten in 15, and has lost 28 pounds. He went into shock last week and was hydrated only then. He refuses to eat, drink or be hospitalized until he goes into shock. According to the Castro tyranny's doctors who visited him yesterday, Fariñas is suffering from "heart arrhythmia and severe dehydration" but since he refuses hospitalization they will continue to wait until he goes into shock (or dies).

Is this what they would also have done in the case of the three year old crossing the avenue and the suicide jumper, or do they just practice bio-ethics À la Carte when it comes to political opponents? What exactly are the bio-ethical principles the tyranny claims to be defending with political opponent Guillermo Fariñas?

UPDATE

As expected, Guillermo Fariñas became unconscious at 2:00 P.M. today and was finally hospitalized.

The story was reported by AFP.

See Dissidents Guillermo Fariñas (right) and Ismael Iglesias M.D. (left)
Photo from AFP

UPDATE ...March 12, 2010

While Fariñas reportedly continues hospitalized and will hopefully terminate his suicidal strike on tyranny and self, the Cuban tyranny is besides itself attempting to defend its positions, although still not in a constitutionally legitimate Cuban courtroom.

After 17 years of ruling Cuba by decree (1959-1976), having established a totalitarian state, and with a significant portion of the population in exile, Fidel Castro held a 'referendum' to replace Cuba´s legitimate constitution (the one Batista violated with a coup in 1952) with one where he's on top and there is no effective separation of powers. This makes it virtually impossible to bring him to justice for any crime.

That´s why there are no constitutionally legitimate courts in Cuba. The counterfeit legal system in place is there to protect tyranny, not justice.

That's why among Cuba´s political prisoners are the nations' foremost patriots.

RELATED:

Castro Regime and Dissident Agree on 'Right' to Suicide

Political Opponent, Potential Suicidée or Common Criminal?

Another Suicidal Hunger Striker in Cuba

Raul Castro Claims Innocence

Tyranny allows Cuban Dissident to Die of Hunger - What now?

Bioethics À la Carte for the Castro Regime?

2010-03-11T12:32:00.015-05:00

Updated here.

Castro Regime and Dissident Agree on 'Right' to Suicide

2010-03-09T22:09:00.037-05:00

Through an article published in its media monopoly, the Castro regime has argued that it is ethically obligated to respect political opponent Guillermo Fariñas' right to die through a hunger strike. While alluding to existing bio-ethical principles for its position, Granma failed to cite any specific arguments or make any valid ones of its own. Instead the article begins by boasting about the tyranny's vaccine program and its mission to Haiti, leaving one to wonder how either of these initiatives justify allowing Fariñas to kill himself.

As if calculating that the latter approach might not convince many, Granma then prefaces the regime´s supposedly bio-ethically driven position with a litany of accusations. But what do they expect this to accomplish? Does the regime mean that Fariñas should be allowed to commit suicide because he is guilty of this and that? So therefore it means that letting him die is, effectively, a death sentence for the crimes they contend he has committed?

He is accused of treason, a grave crime in any country. But why then, one immediately wonders, was Fariñas walking the streets just 2 weeks ago? Why was he effectively sentenced to death only upon initiating a politically motivated hunger strike?

According to Granma's article, Fariñas is a 'salaried US government employee' (cooperates with European enemies too), a 'vendepatria' (traitor), a maladjusted personality, a violent criminal offender (has struck others but never killed anyone), and is guilty of lies and blackmails which have been broadcast by 'subversive' networks (within Cuba, where only Castro's media monopoly is allowed) such as the anti-Cuban station Radio Marti (run by 'apátridas' which is how they now politely refer to the millions who have gone into exile since 1959, also called 'worms' by them). Those are the crimes for which he is to be allowed to die. Oh, and the bioethical principles too.

Evidently unaccustomed to having its astonishing cynicism ever questioned, the regime then argues that force feeding the hunger striker would be ethical only after he goes into shock! That's apparently their guiding 'bio-ethical principle'. But according to which authority? The tyrant?

But then the article adds that Fariñas´ organism is rapidly deteriorating. After all he has worn out after several other hunger strikes demanding one thing or another from tyranny (e.g. Internet access), and was last in shock just last week. The Granma article then boasts that if it were not for the tyranny’s medical team's skill and compassion, he'd be dead, for they helped Fariñas even though he is a mercenary working for the enemy. They just feel he must be on the edge of death, or at least in shock, before exercising said compassion and skill. Ethics obliges them, that´s what we are told.

They don't mention he fought for them in Angola, but do warn readers that he abandoned his socialist principles, and everyone knows that in Cuba, as the tyranny's billboards warn (do they still?), it's "socialism or death"! Too bad you drifted away, comrade Fariñas. Didn't you know what happens here to people like you?

Since history must always absolve Castro (or else, and now his brother too), Granma places the blame for comrade Fariñas' death squarely on Cuban exiles, foreign governments, the foreign press. and on Fariñas' criminal record. Blame can never be Castro's, in any degree. Their system does not allow either Castro to ever be formally accused. No, the accuser invariably and immediately becomes the accused. Which Cuban would ever risk formally accusing either Castro of anything in their courts, let alone pretend that either could ever be judged or condemned for anything whatsoever?

But Fariñas' hunger strike, blackmail in a sense it is, and he has learned the art and crime well from his former master. After all, before Fariñas was even born, Castro had already traded Cubans for tractors (1961). Give him money or a tractor, or it´s life in prison for your Cuban father or son. Upon receiving both in healthy quantities he immediately released his Cuban hostages, but that he contends, is his glorious ‘revolution’ not blackmail.

What about Cubans critical of the Castros not being allowed to enter or leave their homeland? Support the Castros or you cannot leave or return freely. If still on the island, support them or be stigmatized, threatened, beaten up, stoned, banished, imprisoned or killed. That too is revolution, not blackmail.

Leave and you will lose your home unless you return within 1 year. But that's not blackmail either. Castro is always innocent, always justified, always absolved by history, directly, with no intermediaries.

Supposedly also a Christian, Fariñas has nevertheless argued that the homeland, not God, is above all, just like the atheistic regime. Therefore one can no longer consider him a Christian; he has become an idolater, and from the Christian view he will die as one, unless he repents.

Apparently he is caught between what he feels is his commitment to commit suicide unless the tyrant acts justly by releasing political prisoners, and his honor or patriotism. He must realize that honor, patriotism, or conscience can never require one to act irrationally; and that to expect a 50 year tyranny to suddenly act justly because otherwise he will kill himself is unrealistic, if not irrational.

Furthermore he wants to protest against a tyrant while addressing him as Mr. President. This too is irrational.

What would happen to Cuba, or to any nation, if all of its patriots were to act like this? Has Fariñas ever considered the question? Does he believe suicides should be historical role models for Cuban children? If so, that is irrational too, for it could eventually lead to the nation's self destruction.

Having lived 48 years under Castro, Fariñas has regrettably internalized some of his traits. Indeed, he shares more with the tyrant then he might care to admit, for he has absolutized his political beliefs.

Tragically, a sadistic tyranny and a masochistic opponent have joined in purpose to insure the latter's death by suicide. Of course, this latest emanation from a culture of death is not just a Cuban phenomenon but one that infests the globe. Hopefully, it will be categorically condemned by Cubans everywhere and by all people and governments of good will, very soon.

Political Opponent, Potential Suicidée or Common Criminal?

2010-03-06T13:59:00.018-05:00

Is Castro’s regime treating Cuban dissident and hunger striker Guillermo Fariñas as a potential suicide victim or as a political opponent? Hospitalized on March 3 after collapsing unconscious, Mr. Fariñas was immediately released to his home but not placed on a suicide watch.

Mr. Fariñas is ready to die, at least that is what he assures everyone:.

"I am ready in this hunger strike to go to the ultimate consequences, including my death."

His previous fasts have lasted even 6 months. However, in the past the regime has hospitalized him and, unlike hunger striker Orlando Zapata, he has survived. Not this time it seems. At least that is what Fariñas, a former fighter for Cuba's Angolan forces, has informed Raul Castro in his letter to him, dated March 5.

"Three companions of mine, very close to you, have sent me messages updating me that you have given the pertinent orders, such that I be let to die." (Excerpt of Fariñas´ March 5 letter to Raul Castro)

Regardless what he calls it, Fariñas is obviously attempting suicide to attract attention to political prisoners whose lives are also in danger. Otherwise he would drink water and eat. He is morally wrong to use suicide even for this high purpose, and should desist as other political allies and opponents, and even Tamayo’s mother (and this writer) have requested. However, given that he has continued to insist on killing himself, he should have immediately been given medical assistance to prevent his death, and placed on a suicide watch. This has not happened. Why? What does it mean? Are they going to let him die?

Does it mean that this is how the Castro regime has decided to treat likely suicide victims in Cuba, or only those that are political opponents? Does it mean that they just can't respond rationally to his criticisms and want him dead? Or does it mean that they will treat him as a ‘common criminal’ , which is how the regime’s media monopoly described now dead dissident, and hunger striker,Orlando Zapata Tamayo? If none of these, then why doesn't the regime immediately hospitalize Fariñas to prevent the suicide?

He was hydrated on Wednesday when he was hospitalized, but otherwise has not eaten for 10 days (or been hydrated in 3!). He must be either immediately hospitalized and placed on suicide watch (preferably with independent family approved observers), or the political prisoners he's doing this for must be immediately released. Otherwise, Guillermo Fariñas will almost certainly kill himself.

RELATED:

¿Opositor Político, Posible Suicida o Criminal Común? (Longer version of this post but in Spanish - 3/6/2010 9:23 P.M.)

Fariñas Debe Desistir de Huelga de Hambre

Raul Castro Claims Innocence

Another Suicidal Hunger Striker in Cuba

Tyranny allows Cuban Dissident to Die of Hunger - What now?

2008 Plea to Lula for Cuba's Political Prisoners

2010-02-26T14:18:00.018-05:00

According to Brazzil.com Brazil's president Lula denies having ever received any letters appealing for Cuba's political prisoners. Yet on August 13, 2008, I wrote to him pleading for the now dead hunger striker Orlando Zapata Tamayo and Cuba's political prisoners, and I copied Brazil's UN ambassador.

Nevertheless, Brazzil.com has reported:

Lula has denied having received the correspondence. "People need to stop the habit of writing letters, keeping them and then saying that they sent them to other people," he complained. And with a touch of refinement in his own cynicism, concluded: "If these people had spoken to me before, I would have asked him to stop the strike and perhaps this would have prevented his death."

I am in possession of my emailed letter (with full headers demonstrating delivery path) as well as the Brazilian government's acknowledgment of receipt (see scanned image below) of my certified letter mailed in care of Brazil's Ministry of Foreign Relations. I also wrote to Argentina's President Kirchner, to the Queen of Canada, and to the Presidents and UN Ambassadors of Chile, Mexico, Uruguay, France, Germany and the Netherlands.

Below is an excerpt of what I wrote to President Lula. Maybe he and the others I wrote to will do something real, decisive and worthy of our respect very soon, before another killing.

AUGUST 13, 2008 LETTER TO BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT LULA DA SILVA (EXCERPT)

"13 de agosto 2008

Honorable Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
Honorable Exceléntisimo
Sr. Presidente de Brasil
c/o Ministério das Relações Exteriores
Palácio Itamaraty - Esplanada dos Ministérios - Bloco HBrasília/DF - BrasilCEP: 70170-900

"Your Excellency:

"As a Cuban exile I publicly appeal for your understanding and very respectfully request a clarification of your understanding of the UN declaration of human rights (“DHR”) of which Brasil is a signatory subscribes. I also hope for your support.

"Given that Brasil is also a member of the UN Human Rights Council (“HRC”), as is the Cuban regime, a unique opportunity now exists for you to address in this new context the human rights violations to which the latter has been subjecting the Cuban people for almost 50 years.

"As is known publicly and internationally, since the regime seized power in 1959 promising to liberate us it has continuously violated fundamental human rights of the Cuban people, such as:

our right to leave and reenter our homeland.
our right to travel freely within our homeland.
our right to publicly and peacefully express ourselves, communicate and associate with others or Cuban society at large for political purposes that oppose the regime's.
our right to elect our government as was legitimately agreed and expressed in our 1940 constitution or as may be determined by a legitimate constitutional convention in which all Cubans, including exiles participate without risking censorship, beatings or imprisonment.

"As is also known internationally, in 2003 75 Cubans were imprisoned for protesting the regime´s human rights violations They and others have been accused of collaborating with the United States for having accepted the latter's support as they sought to exercise human rights recognized by the DHR. Almost at that same time 3 others were executed following private summary trials, or perhaps no trial, for attempting to leave the country on a hijacked boat, even though no one was physically hurt.

"Four of these political prisoners initiated a hunger strike in July. In other words, they chose to renounce their fundamental right to food if eating meant that they must renounce other fundamental human rights violated by the regime. They are Luis Mariano Delís Utria, Alfredo Rodolfo Domínguez Batista, Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta and Orlando Zapata Tamayo.

"The regime should be held accountable if allegations of prison abuses have not been independently verified given that they do not permit credible independent entities to meet with the 4 prisoners and fully investigate..."

"...I appeal for your collaboration with the peaceful transformation and true liberation of Cuba and therefore to exhort the regime, publicly, and through the Human Rights Council insisting that they:

respect all human rights of these 4 political prisoners, of all the imprisoned, and of all Cubans, as they agreed to upon signing the DHR.
free these 4 and all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally, or make publicly available whatever proof exists that demonstrates they have been justly judged, condemned and sentenced for a crime other than exercising their human rights as defined by the DHR or accepting the help of the United States to do so.
allow while the prisoners remain imprisoned (1) for them to be visited and attended medically and spiritually by entities independent of the regime and approved by their nearest relatives (with priority to husband/wife, parents, children) or the person(s) the prisoner names and (2) to send and receive correspondence without any obstructions.
permit a team of independent investigators of which no less than 2 and at least half of which should be approved by the closest family members to investigate and collect information (through any medium they should wish) about claims of abuse of by any political prisoner or their families. Prisoners should be given the opportunity to name the family member(s) and other person(s) who can provide testimony regarding abuse.
cooperate fully so that Cubans may hold a national debate, unobstructed and not managed by the regime, open to all Cuban exiles and independent observers, to discuss the UN pacts on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which the regime subscribes and (2) permit that the debate be televised and transmitted live by national and international media. That they accept this just invitation and challenge.

"Your excellency, I await your public response and hope for your unequivocal support of all the human rights of these political prisoners and all Cubans, as I believe most Brazilians do, and for which I will remain obliged, and I believe I'm not alone.

"Very truly and respectfully yours,

"copy: Honorable Exceléntisima Sra. Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti Embajadora Extraordinaria y Plenipotenciaria Misión Permanente de Brasil a las Naciones Unidas

ACKNOWLDGEMENT OF RECEIPT FROM BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT

Another Suicidal Hunger Striker in Cuba

2010-02-26T12:34:00.009-05:00

Last night Cuban dissident Guillermo Fariñas initiated a hunger strike, announcing that he will not drink water either. If all dissidents kill themselves, there will be no dissidents left, and this will of course delight the tyrants, Fidel and Raul Castro.

GUILLERMO FARIÑAS
Photo from Miscelaneas de Cuba.net

Hopefully Mr. Fariñas will come to his senses and cease attempting suicide. Instead, Cubans must consider if and how a just war can be waged to overthrow the tyranny, not insult the Creator by committing suicide.

Cubans must also stop regarding the tyranny as omnipotent for that is idolatry.

We must straighten our relationship with God, for if he is with us, we are unbeatable.

RELATED

Fariñas Debe Desistir de Huelga de Hambre (2-27-2010/Spanish)

Raul Castro Claims Innocence

2010-02-25T21:05:00.014-05:00

Continuing with his brother Fidel's "History will Absolve Me" theme, as he faces accusations of having allowed a political prisoner to die after an 86 day hunger strike, Cuba's Raul Castro attempted to reassure the world, declaring:

"In half a century, we have not murdered anyone here, we have tortured no one here, we have not carried out any extra-judicial execution. Well, here in Cuba there have been tortures, but they have taken place at the Guantanamo Naval Base, not on territory governed by the Revolution."

What Raul Castro forgot to add goes something like this:

"And if you don't believe me there's nothing you can do about it. If any Cuban doesn't believe me, there is nothing he or she can do about it either. Understand this: my brother is absolute lord of Cuba and everything and everyone here report to him, and he reports to no one. He cannot be tried and I cannot be tried. Whoever accuses either of us of anything is a counterrevolutionary, and it is he or she who will be tried and condemned. No one here has the authority and power to condemn us. Therefore, we are both absolutely innocent."

UPDATE . FEBRUARY 26 - 1

This post has been blocked by Google's search engine as has the preceding one: AP Doubts Cuban Dissidents' Rights Violated. Read Google vs. Invisible Cuba and Google, the Mainstream News Media, Blogs and Cuba : What I thought was not so crazy after all.

UPDATE 2.....March 11, 2010

This post is no longer blocked, but it´s unclear if Invisible Cuba is still being classified as spam by Google.

AP Doubts Cuban Dissidents' Rights Violated

2010-02-25T20:18:00.006-05:00

Does Will Weissert of the Associated Press doubt that human rights are systematically violated by Cuba's 50 year tyranny? If so, why has he not looked into it? Has he investigated Cuba's free press or the regime's separation of powers and checks and balances? Has he investigated if it would be possible to bring Castro to justice in Cuba, for say, raping someone's wife or stealing someone's home? Has he inquired with those inside who want to leave but are not allowed, or with exiles not allowed to visit their families?

Did Will have a bad case of the doubts when he wrote: "Dissidents plan to use Zapata Tamayo's death to shed more light on what they say is their government's blatant disregard for human rights and civil liberties."

What they say, Will? What they say? What are you waiting for to honestly investigate. Who pays you and for what?

UPDATE FEBRUARY 26 - 1

This post has been blocked by Google's search engine. This is nothing new. Read Google vs. Invisible Cuba and Google, the Mainstream News Media, Blogs and Cuba : What I thought was not so crazy after all.

Tyranny allows Cuban Dissident to Die of Hunger - What now?

2010-02-24T22:59:00.020-05:00

I was not planning to blog any further on Cuba but Orlando Zapata Tamayo has been allowed to die after an 86 day hunger strike in one of Castro’s prisons. No one was expecting it given that the U.S. and international media mostly report stories that portray the Castros as heroes victimized by their victims and the US; and their victims as actors or cowards undeserving of a reporter’s or reader's time.

Most disturbing is one dissident who lamented that something had gone wrong with the so called ‘revolution’.

“It is the legacy of this absurdly long Cuban revolution: our principles killed, or kill he who fights for them.”

Principles? Which principles? Castro's mandated summary trials and executions? Paredón! Paredon! Paredón! (To the wall... to be shot!!)

Raul Castro denied all responsibility for his death even though Orlando was in prison and therefore under his regime's custody. Blaming the U.S. he added that these things wouldn ‘t happen, and there would even be free speech in Cuba, if they would only let ‘us’ alone.

There is not much more that can be said except that today is "patria" day, and Cubans commemorate the beginning of the fight for independence from Spain on February 24, 1895. Spain, of course, is now one of the tyrant’s best friends (along with Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela, and many Democrats some Republicans in the United States and even Puerto Rico).

Cubans have a legitimate right to self defense and an obligation to rid the nation of this curse. The tyrant , his brother and their supporters have been given every possible chance to step down peacefully, and they refuse. They believe they own Cuba and all that is in it.

They are murderous criminals and Cubans must --seriously-- consider if the only way left out is to forcibly remove them.

UPDATE FEBRUARY 25, 2010 - 1

Canada has now condemned Tamayo's 'death' and called for the release of all political prisoners and 'greater tolerance' for opposing views. Shame on Canada: too little and too late. I wrote to Canada's queen over 1 year ago asking for help in stopping the abuse of Cuba's political prisoners and restoring fundamental civil rights, but she responded that I should write to the Prime Minister. She did not offer to forward my letter.

Appeals for Cuba's political prisoners were also made to the presidents and UN representatives of all Latin American members on the UN Council of Human Rights: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Uruguay. They sent one bureaucratic response after another, but did nothing, while showering Castro with flowers.

Letters were also sent to the presidents and U.N. representatives of France, Germany and the Netherlands. Only France responded but did absolutely nothing except express its desire to do business with the tyranny. Germany's Angela Merkel did not respond but unambiguously condemned the tyranny.

UPDATE FEBRUARY 25, 2010 - 2

In the simplest terms, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas' "Just War Theory", use of force would be justified to remove the tyranny if:

1. Right were on our side.

2. We were reasonably certain that victory could be achieved.

3. Victory would not result in a more harmful situation than what presently exists.

The case for the first condition is relatively easy to make given 50 years of tyranny, over 3 million exiles in 50 years (or more than 50% of the 1959 population and 25% of the present), thousands of executions, tens of thousands estimated killed while attempting to escape by sea; the tyranny's media monopoly and its ruthless suppression of the most basic civil liberties, the prohibition to leave or enter one's homeland without its permission, which is regularly denied; an illegal constitution given that it was approved only after a significant portion of the population had been forced into exile and a totalitarian state had been forcefully imposed; illegal regime leaders given their supposed election by virtue of an illegal constitution; illegal confiscation of Cuban citizens' homes and property.

Conditions 2 and 3 are another matter. There is nothing that Castro's tyranny would love more than another failed Bay of Pigs type invasion. That would undoubtedly consolidate communism in Cuba for the foreseeable future. They would love an invasion even if 2 million resulted killed, provided they won.

Victory must be reasonably certain with less loss of life than what might be expected under the tyranny's heirs. If and how this could be accomplished is what Cubans must honestly and objectively discuss.

Google vs. Invisible Cuba

2010-02-18T18:36:00.012-05:00

Apparently mighty Google has classified Invisible Cuba as spam.

Isn't that something?

I discovered this while attempting to save one of my published posts (Nov 3, 2009) as a draft, only to be sent to a page with error message bX-9do1tz.

I asked in the Google help forum and someone immediately replied that my blog had likely been classified as spam. My options, I was told, are to delete the blog or go through a 4 step process which assumes that my request for reclassification (as not- spam) will be rejected, and that I'll have to appeal (in the fourth step) to the great and mighty Google.

Amen.

UPDATE .. March 11, 2010

It´s unclear if Invisible Cuba is still being classified as spam by Google, for I´m no longer getting an error message. Perhaps they just made it more invisible. I don´t know.

Are Reuters and AP Censuring Video of Attack on Cuban Dissident?

2009-11-24T20:48:00.013-05:00

Claudio Fuentes has reported (in English) that video footage relating to the violent confrontation between Reinaldo Escobar and a pro-Castro group in Havana Cuba was taken from him by the Cuban police. According to Mr. Fuentes, his video camera was taken away after having been arrested as he was shooting the arrest of one of the people accompanying Mr. Escobar. Censorship by the Cuban regime won't surprise anyone but Reuters and the AP were present for they reported on it. Why haven't they published the full and unedited video footage of all that happened after Mr. Escobar finished speaking?

As reported in my blog post of November 21 the video released in YouTube (first one on said post) and circulating on the Internet cuts off right after showing Mr. Escobar attempting to establish a dialogue with a group of reporters.

According to Reuters: "He (Mr. Escobar) said he was speaking to reporters when, in what appeared to be an orchestrated event, several hundred people gathered and began shouting "Viva Fidel" and "Viva la Revolucion."

Yet we haven't been able to see and listen to said subsequent interaction between them or perhaps Mr. Fuentes' alleged arrest, or that of the person he was allegedly filming. So where's the video footage that would help establish the truth?

The Cuban regime has claimed that Mr. Escobar provoked the violent outrage that followed. So where is their footage to prove that? Wouldn't it serve their interests to publish it, since it could prove their allegation that Mr. Escobar somehow provoked the violence? Why don't they return Mr. Fuentes his video footage? What are they afraid of?

Why don't Reuters and AP just hurry up and publish their unedited footage of all that happened right in their faces so the world can know the whole truth? Isn't that their job, that is, as the free press?

RELATED:

Pro-Castro Mob Attacks Cuban Dissident But Castro Claims Saving Him

AP 'covers' attack on Cuban Dissident

Google, the Mainstream News Media, Blogs and Cuba : What I thought was not so crazy after all

AP 'covers' attack on Cuban Dissident

2009-11-20T22:00:00.006-05:00

Reinaldo Escobar is reported to have been attacked by a pro-Castro mob today upon arriving at the street corner where he had challenged state security agents to a 'verbal duel'. The story is still emerging in spurts through blogs, and even though correspondents from CNN, NBC and the BBC were reportedly present only El Nuevo Herald and the AP have reported anything thus far.

Mr. Escobar was attempting to establish an honest dialogue with the State Security Agents he has accused of beating up Yoani Sanchez, the renowned Cuban blogger and his wife.

The AP version of the story offers many details but it's stunning how it slips in a defense of Castro's infamous State Security Agents. Here's what the AP unabashedly claimed: “Usually, state security gives opposition activists a ride home after a few minutes to keep things from getting too violent.”

Usually? How many other repressive acts, if any, has the AP covered in Cuba the past year?

The AP evidently believes that Castro's State Security tries to protect activists from violence? How many activists have told them this? What are their names, when did they say it and where is it published?

El Nuevo Herald has published this photo gallery.

Under the Table - Is it going to be Business as Usual for Obama, Yoani Sanchez and Cuba?

2009-11-19T14:18:00.026-05:00

Yoani Sanchez has written that she is in direct communication with Obama. She claimed yesterday to have sent him written questions and that Obama has responded. That was fast. She says the White House drafted the Spanish Translation of Obama's response. The White House has not denied it.

In a Spanish video. Juanita Castro, Fidel and Raul Castro's exiled sister, has declared that the CIA asked her (after the end of the cold war) to start saying that things in Cuba weren't so bad. The CIA has not denied it.

Elsewhere Juanita Castro wants to petition her brother Raul for democracy in Cuba. Given family ties, it's understandable that she does not seem to consider her brother an assassin and that you don't ask such people for anything, let alone democracy. Obama and the Cuban people should also have understood this by now. That does not mean that they should be removed by physical force. But it does mean that they should be removed, not engaged in plans for democracy for Cuba, as is apparently happening.

In response to one question by Ms. Sanchez, Obama allegedly wrote:

The U.S. government regularly talks with groups and individual s inside and outside of Cuba that have an interest in our relations. Many do not always agree with the Cuban government; many do not always agree with the United States government; and many do not agree with each other. What we should all be able to agree on moving forward is the need to listen to the concerns of Cubans who live on the island.

Obama does not mention the concerns of Cubans in exile. Why?

Could Obama's preference for 'Cubans on the island' have anything to do with the fact that many are former communists turned into moderate leftists? Yoani's husband was a correspondent for one of Castro's newspapers and Yoani has even praised Castro's first years even though hundreds of thousands of Cubans were forced into exile and hundreds executed without a real trial. Do Yoani Sanchez and Obama believe anyone should face a trial for these crimes or are they far more content with a new leftist government and impunity? Could it be that Obama and Yoani want to steer economic and political power in Cuba towards the new left while marginalizing Cuban exiles, specially the ones who left in the 1960's, 1970's and Mariel? Is that what all of this really means?

Does Obama want and expect 'Cubans' to define their future but under the table? Who does he deem Cuban or capable enough to accomplish this? Evident from his alleged response is that he has included some unelected exiles selected by his administration, but is primarily interested in working with unelected Cubans on the island (selected by his administration) and, of course, the unelected tyranny which Obama, Yoani Sanchez and others insist on legitimizing by calling it 'The Cuban Government'?

In her second question Ms. Sanchez even asks Obama:

"Should your administration be willing to put an end to this dispute, would it recognize the legitimacy of the Raul Castro government as the only valid interlocutor in the eventual talks?"

Obama's answer leaves little doubt that he considers Cuba's government to be the one led by Castro. Should he Mrs.Sanchez? Should he recognize an assassin as the legitimate leader of Cuba? Isn't that what you do?

So is this not then business as usual?

UPDATE BELOW - NOVEMBER 20, 2009 - 12:20 A.M.

Notwithstanding my disagreements and doubts about Yoani politically, I couldn't help but sympathize with her after seeing this video (Spanish) evidently produced with the help of the tyranny. They didn't think twice about violating Yoani's right to medical privacy. Nor about getting 3 doctors, supposedly concerned about her health, to publicly characterize her as a liar.

Yoani is a highly intelligent person and if she had invented the facts of her beating she wouldn't have gone to a hospital to seek help and establish a medical record.

In addition, Cubans report (at great personal risk) getting beaten up by the political police regularly and frequently. The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming.

RELATED:

Where's Fidel Castro?

Surprise! Castros Won't Respond to Accusations by Yoani Sanchez

Preguntas para Yoani Sanchez (In Spanish)

Cubans under siege end fast and sit-in

2009-11-19T08:59:00.003-05:00

Protesters who have reportedly been under siege in Havana, Cuba announced an end to their 8 day liquids-only fast and 40 day sit-in. They added that they are not aware if the regime will also end the siege which they have been reporting. The protesters, led by Vladimiro Roca and Martha Beatriz Roque, released a statement declaring that "their demand for the return of the expropriated camera was not their final objective", but that the latter is "only symbolic of our rights, and of those of the people, shattered day by day by 'the Government'."

They added that "...with their attitude of unwillingness to return the loaded (with pictures-my parenthesis) article, and given the meaning of this, 'the Government' has made clear to the world that it does not possess the will to change, and that it will not budge one iota to restore rights ..."

UPDATED NOVEMBER 18, 2009 - 4:29 P.M. - ARGENTINA

RELATED:

'Outcome Unpredictable' in Duel of Wills Between Protesters and Castro's Tyranny

Spanish language blog covering the siege and Ms. Roque's health

Siege in Havana: Conflicting Signals and Reports

URGENT: Where's Fidel Castro? - Part II

UPDATE. Cuban Dissidents' Homes Under Siege After Issuing Ultimatum

Where's Fidel Castro?

'Outcome Unpredictable' in Duel of Wills Between Protesters and Castro's Tyranny

2009-11-16T15:40:00.027-05:00

The outcome of a duel of wills between Castro's tyranny and opponents in Havana 'is unpredictable', according to Vladimiro Roca (audio), president of the Social Democrat party and son of Blas Roca (1909-1987), former head of the Cuban Communist party. Out of the 11 original protesters, 6 remain.

Armando Rodríguez Lama had to be hospitalized from dehydration and according to Mr. Roca, he was beaten up by the political police upon attempting to return to the site of the siege. He is now back on the liquid fast but from his own home, outside of which he has reportedly hung his protest signs.

Others had to leave because of conflicting priorities and family life, and one has been accused by Mr. Roca of bad mouthing the other protesters and is suspected of working undercover for Castro's political police.

According to Mr. Roca (audio) one of the remaining dissidents, Yasmani Nicles Abad, is becoming dehydrated. Apparently he is on a total hunger strike and has not been drinking liquids. A transcription of the Spanish text of the audio is available here.

Martha Beatriz Roque, a diabetic, has continued her liquid fast despite not being able to control her symptoms with medications (Ciprocloxacina), which she has had to discontinue because of side effects. A doctor was finally allowed to visit her but allegedly could not remain at the home under siege because of threats from the regime.

According to Mr. Roca, Havana's Cardinal Ortega prohibited a priest from providing Ms. Roque the Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction. She was only able to receive the sacraments because another priest provided them without requesting permission from the Cardinal. Mr. Roca has asked that Benedict XVI be informed of the Cardinal's refusal.

Mr. Roca is coauthor with Martha Beatriz Roque and two others of "La Patria es de Todos" ("The Homeland Belongs to All"). Mr.Roca's father wrote "The Fundamentals of Socialism in Cuba."

The 39 day sit-in (plantón) and fast while under siege, is reportedly taking place at Calle 39, number 105, between 41 and 43, Nuevo Vedado, Havana. They are demanding the return of an expropriated camera with photos and respect for Cubans' basic human rights.

RELATED:

Spanish language blog covering the siege and Ms. Roque's health

Siege in Havana: Conflicting Signals and Reports

URGENT: Where's Fidel Castro? - Part II

UPDATE. Cuban Dissidents' Homes Under Siege After Issuing Ultimatum

Where's Fidel Castro?

Siege in Havana: Conflicting Signals and Reports

2009-11-15T09:42:00.019-05:00

Partially contradicting CNN's report, Vladimiro Roca protested that the Cuban regime prevented Marta Beatriz Roque from being examined and provided medications by a physician acceptable to her. Ms. Roque is a diabetic and started a hunger strike after being under siege for over 30 days in protest for the expropriation of a camera with photos and violation of Cubans' rights.

According to CNN:

“Authorities have not allowed food or medicine into the house, the dissident said. Under pressure from diplomats, Cuban authorities allowed a doctor into the house Thursday night, Valle Roca said. He would not identify the physician by more than his first name, Ricardo."

On Friday, Mr. Roca reported that Ms. Roque had fainted twice and was suffering from cystitis and kidney pain which prevented her from lying on her back. She is drinking liquids and has taken medications to control her blood sugar which indicates she doesn't intend suicide with the hunger strike. However, according to Mr. Roca she has said that she is willing to pay for liberty with her life.

The physician allegedly turned back was the husband of one of the 12 dissidents under siege. Mr. Roca also reported that the regime had nonetheless sent an unsolicited ambulance for Ms. Roque but that this was in order to appear as 'the good guys', evidently alluding to the regime's notoriety for human rights violations.

Asked about help from other Cubans, Mr. Roca pointed to supporters not being allowed to enter the premises of the siege, but that they are staging 'plantones' (sit-ins) in solidarity at Pinar del Rio, Villa Clara, Holguin, Camaguey and Oriente (now called Granma).

With regard to coverage by bloggers within Cuba, Mr. Roca explained that Cubans didn't have access to the Internet and thus bloggers didn't have much impact within the island; but that they contributed by informing the international community of what was happening within.

This could indeed be a decisive contribution given the Castro's regime absolute media monopoly. However, to my knowledge, the most well known blogs from within the island have (strangely) made no reference to Ms. Roque's condition, the hunger strike or to the 36 day siege taking place so close to them in Havana and reported by bloggers outside of Cuba and even by CNN. Why not?

RELATED:

Spanish language blog covering the siege and Ms. Roque's health

URGENT: Where's Fidel Castro? - Part II

UPDATE. Cuban Dissidents' Homes Under Siege After Issuing Ultimatum

Where's Fidel Castro?

Stop Execution of Cuban Exile Today -- Biased Trial

2009-11-10T14:53:00.021-05:00

How many Cuban exiles were in the jury that convicted Yosvanis Valle for a murder for which he faces execution in Texas today? Valle still contends that he is innocent and that he was convicted because he could not finance a proper defense.

Had Valle had been Mexican he would surely have received financing from the Mexican government for his defense. For the tyranny in Cuba, of course, Valle is just another gusano (worm). They are concerned with defending Cuban spies in the US, not exiles. Thus this Cuban exile ended up being defended by the Texas Public Defender's Office.

Valle, known as “El Cubano”, was convicted by a Harris County jury. According to the U.S. Census Bureau the county is made up of whites, blacks, American Indians, Alaska Native persons, Asian persons, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders and 'Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin'. No Cuban exiles are identified; they are lumped into the Hispanic category even though their political ties to their native land are radically different compared to those of other hispanics and to Mexicans, who constitute by far the majority of US Hispanics.

Cuban exiles are less than 1% of the population and less than 2% of all Hispanics in the U.S.. Lumping them together with other Hispanics might work for the U.S. Census but it certainly prevents them from being provided equal protection under the law as required by the U.S. Constitution.

How many Cuban exiles were in that jury that convicted Valle? Would it have been acceptable if a jury only of blacks had convicted a white Anglo Saxon or vice versa?

Wouldn't the composition of the jury have have been an issue in evaluating the fairness of the trial if a black, Mexican or a White Anglo Saxon had been convicted? Why then has it been irrelevant in determining a verdict and a death sentence for a Cuban exile? Did Valle's defense ask this question? If so, what answer did he/she receive? If not, why is this Cuban exile being executed in Texas today?

UPDATE 10:08 P.M. - ARGENTINA

Yosvanis Valle was executed by the government of the State of Texas minutes ago.

UPDATE 10:45 P.M. - ARGENTINA

According to EFE, Mr. Valle confessed to the crime and apologized to the victim's family just before being executed.

His confession does not affect the reasonableness of my argument above nor justify the death penalty.

He was sorry for what he had done. He could have remained the rest of his life in solitary confinement where he would not have been a threat. His executioners believe they had the right to kill him even though they did not create him or were threatened by him.

Surprise! Castros Won't Respond to Accusations by Yoani Sanchez

2009-11-09T19:48:00.034-05:00

CNN reported that the Castro regime refused to comment on accusations by Yoani Sanchez that she and one other were detained and beaten by the tyranny's political police. Of course, and who is going to make them do it? 'Don't make us laugh', the Castros surely boast and with good reason, for thanks to them there hasn't been an independent judiciary in Cuba in 50 years; only tyranny. No separation of powers. These criminals control everything. Who could possiubly be surprised that they admit no questioning? CNN? Yoani?

Gee, someone might even think this is the first time these assassins beat up a woman or a dissident, or that this is as bad as can be reported about them. (I mean, where has CNN been all of these years?) That's also perhaps why the Castros don't respond, that is, because it even serves their interests, by distracting from their more monstrous crimes. Furthermore, absent independent investigations and judiciary, it's their word (or silence) against their victims'.

Or worse. They don't respond in order to implicitly suggest that they proudly admit to their crimes, which they call virtue. Yes and to think that their representative was elected President of the Advisory Board for the UN Council of Human Rights. Isn't that something?

Yet, do I trust Yoani? Here's what she reportedly declared in an interview 2 days after the alleged attack:

"This is what we are seeing in Cuba now: the absence of any sort of argument, handling people through violence and fear. This is all we have left. There is no symbolical legacy, none the things that existed in the first years of the [revolutionary] process. Terror is the only thing that remains."

So you see, for Yoani, in those first years Fidel Castro was just fine. If only we could return to those days? Is this what Yoani thinks?

RELATED:

Cuban Police Beat Up 3 Women Attempting to Visit Dissident Antúnez (Video)

Preguntas para Yoani Sanchez

Preguntas para Reinaldo Escobar sobre "Una Sola Familia (cubana)"

News Distribution Attacked in Argentina

2009-11-08T19:31:00.012-05:00

Two mayor Argentinean newspapers reported attacks on their papers' distribution in Buenos Aires. In addition, blog portal "Voces Cubanas" (www.vocescubanas.com), which features Cuban bloggers such as Yoani Sanchez is no longer accessible from at least 2 independent servers and locations in Argentina. However, Ms. Sanchez blog is still accessible here.

The attacks on distribution of print papers began on Friday coincidentally the same day in which Yoani Sanchez alleged having been detained and beaten by the 'political police' in Havana.

In Buenos Aires newspaper distribution trucks were blocked and several distribution points reported threats, thefts and even armed assaults. You may still be able to read about it (in Spanish) in Clarin here and here and in La Nacion, here.

UPDATE NOVEMBER 18, 2009

The blog portal "Voces Cubanas" (www.vocescubanas.com) is again accessible after having been unavailable for more than a week.

UPDATE. Cuban Dissidents' Homes Under Siege After Issuing Ultimatum

2009-10-13T18:18:00.082-04:00

Hablemos Press has reported that Marta Beatriz Roque's and Vladimiro Roca's homes are surrounded by Castro's forces since having issued an ultimatum on October 10. They further reported that those who approach their houses are being threatened with arrest.

UPDATE OCTOBER 13, 10:45 P.M.

Apparently 11 people, including Marta Beatriz Roque, are under siege at Vladimiro Roca's home. It has again been reported that those who approach the home are being interrogated and even arrested if it's determined that that's where they were going.

Path to Vladimiro Roca's home, reportedly under siege with 11 dissidents inside

It would be great if a picture of the scene could be taken from both inside and outside Mr. Roca's house. The house is just not visible in the picture above.

Georgina Noa Montes, a dissident who attends 'courses' at Mr. Roca's residence claims that they are not allowed to receive food and that rocks are being thrown at them. It is unclear if she is inside the house and reported this by phone.

Georgina Noa Montes

Her allegations were reported Julio Beltrán Iglesias an independent journalist in Havana associated with Agencia Libre Asociadas (ALAS).

Julio Beltrán Iglesias

According to Pinceladas de Cuba, Marta Beatriz Roque spoke from the house under siege by phone and also reported rocks being thrown, people arrested and some beaten up. She reportedly declared by phone:

“Those who have tried to approach the place to express their support have been arrested and we have witnessed that some have been beaten, and nothing is known of their whereabouts since."

Marta Beatriz Roque

Vladimiro Roca

Dissident Issues Castro's Cops an Ultimatum

Obedient Free Press in Cuba

Hablemos Press and CIHPress appear to be the first exceptions to an 'obedient press'. Add Julio Beltrán Iglesias, Agencia Libre Asociadas (ALAS), Pinceladas de Cuba and Georgina Noa Montes, FLAMUR'S delegate in Havana to the exceptions. Let's see what they continue to report.

UPDATE 11:43 P.M.

What is apparently happening to these dissidents in Havana is also an appalling spectacle of the dehumanized world that surrounds the Cuban people. Where are the foreign correspondents? Why haven't they been reporting on this? It started on October 9, 4 days ago!

Where are the Canadian, Latin American and European tourists? What are they doing as this occurs right in their faces? Where are the U.S. and Cuban bishops clamoring for an end to the embargo that will bring even more idiot tourists and billions for the tyranny?

Then there are those who even cheer the tyrant, their hero.

What a spectacle of dehumanization.

All who claim the right to travel to Cuba while remaining silent about this should read anthropologist Colin Turnbull's "The Mountain People". Those described therein are a terrifying reminder of you. He describes what's happening to you.

UPDATE OCTOBER 14, 12:12 A.M.

Even though he's presumably under siege by the 'revolutionary' regime Mr. Roca nevertheless appeals to and even calls for the bogus 1976 constitution to be upheld. What an insult to the millions of us Cubans who were, in effect, forced into exile between 1960 and 1976, years in which Fidel Castro ruled by decree while constructing his totalitarian system! How could a coerced and exiled population be deemed to have approved such a constitution? How could it ever have been legitimate, Mr. Roca? 20% were already in exile Mr. Roca!

Both Fidel and Raul Castro's parents were born in Spain while both of mine, 3 of 4 grandparents and 6 of my great grandparents (who knows how many other ancestors) were born in Cuba 1 and 2 centuries ago. Yet these 2 gangsters, hardly Cuban, are the ones who sit on top, depriving real Cubans of their nation and their liberty. How could this be anything other than cultural genocide? I pray for justice. Let there be justice. Let there be justice.

How is it then that you, Mr. Roca, apparently believe in said constitution? How could it be just fine with you what they did prior to 1976? Is it just fine with you that my grandparents (and thousands of others) died in exile, or that my family (and hundreds of thousands of others) have lived anywhere from half to almost all of their lives in exile?

If it is not, then how dare you ask anyone to respect any laws, let alone a constitution, pushed through by a criminal such as the one you once had allegiance to at the time?

That's what makes you and Mrs. Roque very questionable in my eyes. Just like Yoani Sanchez. You all are dissidents and yet seem to consider this tyranny a legitimate government needing some reforms. You thus implicitly approve of the millions that have been silenced and forced into exile. Had they not done that their bogus 1976 constitution and its later editions would not exist, let alone be legitimate and worthy of respect as you request.

Straighten out your positions if you expect the trust of rational Cuban victims. As far as I'm concerned, right now, I'm not sure which side any of you are on, siege and all.

UPDATE - OCTOBER 15 1:30 A.M.

No news regarding Vladimiro Roca, Marta Beatriz Roque and the 9 others reportedly under siege in Mr. Roca's home since last Friday. They are not even allowed food. Obviously being under siege in Cuba is nothing extraordinary. To my knowledge no one has checked on the prisoners again. It's normal, not news. Is that the reason nobody checks regularly and reports?

Why have we no pictures of the house under siege been? Don't they have cell phones with cameras inside the house? Aren't the phones supposedly working?

UPDATE -- OCTOBER 15 2009 4:00 P.M

Julio Beltrán Iglesias reported that 'a school of high school students' have been stationed in front of Mr. Roca's home where 13, not 11, are under siege.

He further reports that Castro's forces are telling the students that those under siege are Miami financed terrorists, and are inciting them to shout at them, while preventing them from reading the posters that the besieged have on display. The dissidents stood on the porch and watched the students, writes Mr. Beltràn, quoting Georgina Noa Montes, one of those apparently under siege but accessible by telephone. Mr. Beltrán reported how he could hear the students over the telephone screaming at the besieged, while talking to Ms. Montes on Wednesday October 14.

UPDATE OCTOBER 15 11;22 P.M.

What does the United Nations Council on Human Rights have to say about all of this? What about Miguel Alfonso Martinez, the Cuban, appointed by Castro and elected by the U.N. Human Rights Council to be President of its Advisory Committee? What about Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and Uruguay and all those others who voted to elect said Castro appointee.

Is this what they had in mind?

UPDATE OCTOBER 15 11;41 P.M.

Hmmm. I just found a new report on the 'siege' published anonymously by Red Cubana Comunicadores Comunitarios

There's a picture of Mr. Roca and Ms. Roque facing each other somewhere but no evidence of anyone surrounding them. Here's the picture:

Vladimiro Roca and Marta Beatriz Roque 'under siege' somewhere

They further report that Mr. Roca left the premises to get food and was threatened to death (more precisely, to be 'stabbed'). However, he was able to leave.

The anonymous 'communicators' explain that the 'independent' journalists (like them and those under siege I suppose) are trying to help Cubans who are neither or for or against the tyranny express their complaints. Neither for or against the tyranny? Express their complaints to the tyranny?

Right. I mean, left.

So, are these independent journalists supporters of Castro's Constitution, like Mr. Roca, or against it? That shouldn't be too hard to guess.

UPDATED OCTOBER 16, 2009 2:36 P.M.

On further thought I realize that 'neither for or against the tyranny' likely means fear. The independent journalists perhaps serve the role of helping the population overcome its fear of opening up and addressing the tyranny. Perhaps they act, in effect, as Castro's psychotherapeutic force. Once the fearful express their grievances, the tyranny determines which adjustments to make (i.e. monitored cell phones, etc.) and the one party system is further strengthened. The subjected people and their master having become more reliably bonded, risk of a revolutionary rupture is effectively diminished. Perhaps that's what these dissidents are: the dictatorships' psychotherapists. Who knows?

Otherwise their (Mr. Roca's) suppport of Castro's 1976 constitution while proclaiming to be dissidents is incomprehensible. The same goes with Marta Beatriz Roque's statement that the Castro regime 'is no longer subversive".

As the regime's leader Fidel Castro never was a subversive. Indeed, he became the lead counter revolutionary on January 3, 1959 when he started appointing presidents, while ruling by decree, as if he had either of those rights.

Apparently, Mr. Roca and Mrs. Roque believe Castro did, which should make everyone wonder what they mean by 'democracy'.

UPDATE OCTOBER 18, 2009 12:11 A.M.

Bloggers associated with Mr. Roca have initiated a solidarity campaign on the Internet. One even asks how the circle of 'unsolidarity' can be broken. As far as I'm concerned, that's easy: Mr. Roca and Mrs. Roque and all of their followers should condemn the fake constitutions and the whole 50 years of tyranny, and not just from the point in which it soured for them!

Moving in that direction, one of his followers posted this video on Che Guevara perhaps taken from here.

Great but why don't they just condemn Castro's illegitimate constitutions?

Obedient Free Press in Cuba

2009-10-13T12:53:00.011-04:00

Independent news coverage inside Cuba (foreign and dissident) impresses me as not independent enough with regard to the totalitarian tyranny. It sometimes appears to me that when the tyranny says 'look there', they all run there; and when it says 'don't look here', they just don't.

One result of course is that it becomes difficult to discern the objective facts about ongoing events. This makes it easier for the tyranny's agents to double up as the opposition and harder to distinguish them from the real opposition.

RELATED:
Dissident Issues Castro's Cops an Ultimatum

UPDATE: False Cuban Dissidents 'Take Over' Town While U.S. and Tyranny Enjoy Cocktails

Google, the Mainstream News Media, Blogs and Cuba : What I thought was not so crazy after all

Dissident Issues Castro's Cops an Ultimatum

2009-10-10T22:43:00.027-04:00

Responding to the seizure of a camera by Castro's State Security, a leading Cuban dissident has warned that unless it is returned by midnight tonight, October 10, 200 dissidents will protest in Havana.

Ms. Martha Beatriz Roque was allegedly informed by the agents that the camera contained pictures of her. Wow. Another agent reportedly elaborated that the seizure was provoked by the subversion against the revolution by counterrevolutionaries, The United States and Holland.

Ms. Roque reported to have responded that the regime was the only counterrevolutionary.

Both Ms. Roque and her close dissident associate, Vladimiro Roca (son of Blas Roca, former head of the Cuban Communist party) are former regime officials. Mr. Roca's home is reported to have been been surrounded by Castro's security forces since the afternoon of October 10.

The story was reported by Ms. Roque in Mambi in Accion and with a reference to “The Declaration of Illegitimate Government" subtitled “It stopped being subversive” (but without specifying when).

I signed the declaration here even though I'm pùzzled, for example, by their reference to the illegitimate regime as 'government'.

UPDATE October 12, 2009 1:38 P.M.

There's no news about the ultimatum. Did Castro's cops return the camera and the pictures? If so, why doesn't someone in Habana say so? If not, was there a protest? What happened? Is Vladimiro Roca's house still surrounded?

Why aren't the foreign correspondents in Cuba getting the story?

UPDATE October 13, 2009 12:30 P.M.

There's still no news on Marta Beatriz Roque or Vladimiro Roca or the return of the camera.

Why aren't Cuban dissident news services reporting on this?

What about dissidents in Havana? Has anyone tried to visit Marta Beatriz Roque or Vladimiro Roca?

If so, what happened?

If not, why not?

UPDATE: False Cuban Dissidents 'Take Over' Town While U.S. and Tyranny Enjoy Cocktails

2009-10-02T13:06:00.005-04:00

Cuban dissidents have reportedly created an 'opposition' municipality in Santiago de Cuba. Apparently a group of undisclosed dissident organizations joined to create the municipality. An administration was appointed (or elected) and they have called it Palma Soriano.

Meanwhile at the other end in Havana, Bisa Williams, U.S. President's Obama's envoy, enjoyed the tyranny's hospitality for 5 1/2 days beyond her initial official meeting with Cuban officials. This initiative did not culminate in dissidents taking over any towns, but rather in a coctail party at the U.S. Interests office in Havana.

Only the tyranny's officials and authorized artists were invited.

1:45 P.M. - The 'town take over' story was reported by 'dissident' online news servioe 'Miscelaneas de Cuba'. The fraudulent dissidents apparently have a blog on Google where they explain that they just want to gather complaints and take them to the 'authorities', the ones they oppose but nevertheless deem legitimate. Obviously this is part of the 'authorized' opposition, one fully under Csatro's totalitarian control.

U.S. Citizen Denied Entry into the United States

2009-09-10T21:55:00.027-04:00

Perhaps you'd be stunned if a U.S. citizen were denied entry into the United States. Even if you were one of those whose heart bleeds for the Cuban tyranny, right?

The real news is no news. Another Cuban citizen is denied entry into his place of birth.

Blanca Gonzalez, the mother of Cuban political prisoner Normando Hernandez received a letter from the Castro regime informing her that they would not grant her a visa to visit her homeland of Cuba or her son in prison. Yes, these criminals require Cubans visas to enter their country. Mr. Hernández is approximately 41 and has been in prison since 2003. She has not been able to see him 7 years.

In their letter, the Cuban Interests Section in Washington informed her that to know the reasons for their (absolutely unconstitutional and inhumane) decision she could send a relative living in Cuba to visit the Immigration office there (as if she were an immigrant and not a native).

Why the secrecy? Or is it just that Cuba's tyrant is ashamed to put his reasons in writing? If that's the case, that is, if he has begun to feel guilt and shame, then perhaps he's changing spiritually.

The video (below) of her reaction is in Spanish.

In another video shot at Miami International Airport here the second speaker (another blonde woman) identifies herself as the daughter of one of the regime's Lieutenant Colonels. Should assume she is pro-Castro? Whatever the case may be the Cuban Lieutenant Colonel's daughter apparently lives in Miami and unlike the political prisoner's mother travels to Cuba (and the U.S.) without any problems.

Cubans need to unite and bring the Castros to justice. However, infiltrators and the experience of 2 consecutive dictators (Batista, Castro) make it very difficult for Cubans to trust each other or to unite under a leader that might succesfully lead the opposition in this pre electoral phase. They are afraid of leaders, afraid they can´t control them. The military is to blame for this. Brute force has won because they sided with tyranny in 1952 and 1959 and has continued to do so to this day.

Maybe we should hold a simulation trial in Havana or on the Internet. Any volunteers to serve on Comandante Castro's (and his brother's) defense team?

Updated September 14 - Argentina

UPDATED: Google, Cuba Journal and the Politics of Hate

2009-09-08T20:40:00.040-04:00

Previous title: Google, Cuba Journal and Hatred Towards Cuban Exiles

Google claims the following as its policy on free speech and "hateful material":

"Blogger strongly believes in freedom of speech. We believe that having a variety of perspectives is an important part of what makes blogs such an exciting and diverse medium. With that said, there are certain types of content that are not allowed on Blogger. While Blogger values and safeguards political and social commentary, material that promotes hatred toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity is not allowed on Blogger."

Yet this is how Cuba Journal referred to Cuban exiles in its September 8, 2009 post (5:48 PM):

"These idiots have been living in the United States for fifty years, and have yet to learn to respect printed opinions which do not agree with their narrow mindedness."

This is utterly disrespectful of Cuban exiles and encourages others to hate and despise them.

Would this language be acceptable in Google Blogger if it were referring to any other ethnic group? Would it be it fine by Google's standards for a blogger to refer to Jews, Blacks, Mexicans or some other ethnic minority as "idiots" or by any other derogatory term?

How about 'gusanos' (worms),'monkeys', 'scum'? These are all terms employed by Cuba Journal to refer to Cuban exiles in its posts. Indeed, Cuba Journal is nothing less than an importer of Castro's politcs of hate into the United States and the Internet. There's hardly any difference between its speech and that of the Cuban tyranny exhorting followers to persecute those who dissent while publicly and loudly calling them 'worms'. Persecuted they then are and with the full brutal force of the regime backing the persecutors.

Given its public policy on hate speech how can Castro's and Cuba Journal's politics of hate possibly be acceptable to Google?

Or is it only acceptable to Google when it's directed at Cuban exiles? Or by someone such as Cuba Journal who represents himself as one?

Google must surely know that hate speech is protected by the U.S. constitution's first ammendment in most cases. Perhaps that's why it doesn't mind violating its own policies.

Now that most communication has been internationalized through the Internet Castro and others who specialize in war through hate speech must be delighted. Repress at home and build hate momentum towards exiles abroad. Google blog search and Google blogger will take care of the rest with the help of Cuba Journal and Castro's network of U.S. supporters.

When I last checked (September 11) Google ranks Cuba Journal as the 4th most relevant blog if one types the keyword 'Cuba'.

Furthermore, Cuba Journal's foregoing hate blurb, camouflaged as a post on free speech is easily accecible on Google's blog search engine while mine, "Van Jones, Free Speech and Cuban Exiles", was blocked until September 10.

Updated September 11, 2009 from Argentina.

Related:
Van Jones, Free Speech and Cuban Exiles

Google, the Mainstream News Media, Blogs and Cuba : What I thought was not so crazy after all

Van Jones, Free Speech and Cuban Exiles

2009-09-06T14:44:00.054-04:00

THIS POST WAS UNBLOCKED TODAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 BY GOOGLE'S SEARCH ENGINE

I remember my encounter with Van Jones in Berkeley for I was there in 1999 when hundreds or perhaps more than a thousand took to the streets to protest Pacifica Radio's alleged censorship of KPFA, its local affiliate. Those who had missed Berkeley's renowned free speech movement in 1964 now had a chance to defend a right enshrined in the U.S. constitution.

Yet this was Berkeley and thus someone could both defend and deny the right to free speech without any jaws dropping. In other words, many in Berkeley were more than willing to patriotically turn the town upside down to defend their constitutional right to free speech while supporting Fidel Castro's 'free speech only for those who think like me' regime and turning Berkeley into a sister city of Palma Soriano, Santiago de Cuba. Their utterly shameless hypocrisy was hard to believe and so I decided to test it by lending my support to their "free speech" cause.

When a community strategy meeting was called and all activist organizations were invited I decided to attend. The 75-100 representatives of activist organizations were seated in a semi-circle while Mr. Van Jones and Ms. Andrea Buffa stood at the head. They began the meeting by reminding everyone about the importance of avoiding divisiveness since that would certainly be the enemy's tactic against the reborn fledgling movement. A united front with a common strategy was to be the way to win this war for, hmmm, Free Speech.

Van Jones then asked each of the seated participants to introduce himself or herself. I was among the first ten and when my turn arrived I announced that I was a Cuban exile and could therefore identify completely with the right they were claiming. I then offered my services, that is, to help nationalize their cause by seeking support among fellow exiles in Florida. I assured them that Cuban exiles would overwhelmingly support their claim to freedom of expression.

Without any hesitation whatsoever, Van Jones icily replied: "Progressives only" and proceeded to the next participant.

I analyzed his response for less than a minute and walked out.

Given this interaction, I'm not surprised by the revelations that have surfaced in the past few weeks or his politically inevitable resignation (for Obama's sake). But how could Obama ever have elected him as a czar?

Had I been Fidel's Castro emissary, or the tyrant himself, I suppose Van Jones would have welcomed me. Indeed, STORM or (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), a group to which he belonged, travelled to Cuba in 1999. There are no reports of Van Jones or any of his STORM associates organizing free speech protests during that visit; or of their meeting with dissident Cuban human rights advocates or visiting political prisoners. Need I ask why not? They and some congressmen only seemed to be concerned about 'their right' to travel to Cuba, not about human rights for Cubans or anyone else.

How much time did President Obama spend with Van Jones or reading his reports, if any? Surely he must have had influence or he would not have been recruited to be part of Obama's team of czars.

What was Van Jones' input, if any, on Obama's Cuba and Honduras policies? How do we know this for sure?

Cuban Mail-Woman Takes Her Protest to the World

2009-06-17T00:11:00.057-04:00

A Cuban postal worker has gone public with a grievance that her monthly salary is being retained. As a mail-woman Rosario Morales la Rosa earns the equivalent of US $11 per month. She alleges to have attempted in vain to get answers from the Cuban Postal Administration, the Minister of Communications and the Cuban Communist Party but has received 'unconvincing' answers and warned by 'the firm' that represents her to seek employment elsewhere if she doesn't agree. She claims 32 other postal workers are facing the same problem.

Asked by Miscelaneas de Cuba what reasons there might be for the retention Ms. Morales is unsure but adds that she has been meeting with groups that discuss human rights.

Rosario Morales la Rosa
Cuban Mail Delivery Protester

She has been asked to return the bycicle she uses to deliver mail but refuses to do so until she is paid for services rendered.

Cuba of course has been a one party, one employer system since Castro imposed a dictatorship over 50 years ago. In addition, executive, legislative and judicial powers are not independent or mutually controlled by checks and balances.

Ms. Morales' interview did not go into other possibly relevant details such as the size of her family and their dependency on her salary, her housing situation, etc. Are her living quarters fully subsidized and has her family been threatened with eviction? What are their food rations, how much do they cost her and has she been threatened with losing them? Has she faced acts of repudiation or other threats or is she afraid she might? Has she attempted to access the regime's health care system? Have her children been harrassed at school and how much does she pay for education? What's the quality in her estimation?

Has she attempted to express her grievance through the regime's media monopoly?

Has she tried or does she intend to apply for another job? Could she realistically sue the one party regime for the retained wages and what does she believe might be the costs and risks?

Her responses to questions such as these would provide US and first world readers with data to assess her situation more fully and objectively and to compare it with postal workers and others in their countries.

Given her dismal wages , Mrs. Morales is effectively a captive in her own homeland for even if the regime were ever to permit her, she would find it impossible to travel outside of Cuba without a sponsor.

Mrs. Morales may not understand that there are many in Argentina, the US and elsewhere who argue that Castro's dictatorship, despite its abuses, is reasonably just or even something just short of paradise.

Accordingly, it's critical that victims reporting human rights abuses in Cuba try to give a full and accurate accounting of what the regime in their experience gives them versus what it takes away; and if they would rather have it the other way with all it entails.

This or

That?

Notwithstanding, for example, Argentinian president Cristina Kirchner's gravely offensive and unethical defense of Castro's rights as a dictator, she evidently still prefers something that is more like 'that', or one wouldn't be reading this in Argentina. However, read the updates below.

UPDATED ON JULY 1, 2009

However, Cubanos vs. Muchos, (in Spanish) posted on June 18, has been blocked, apparently permanently, within Argentina by Google's search engine for blog posts.

In addition, on June 19 Argentina extended my permit to reside here for only one more month, that is, until after parlamientary elections. Previously, they had been renewing it for 3 month periods.

UPDATE JULY 21 FROM ARGENTINA

Argentina extended my residency permit today.

Photo of Mrs. Morales from Miscelaneas de Cuba/CIHPRESS.
Argentinean bird photos © 2009 Enrique I. Alonso

Cuban Dissident Woman Reportedly Beaten up Again

2009-06-08T12:46:00.014-04:00

Mayra Morejón Hernandez, a non-violent Cuban woman dissident was reported to have again been beaten up on June 6. Her assailant, whom she described as 'a tall and strong man', warned that it was 'to teach her a lesson'. Ms. Morejón had been previously beaten up on May 23. This time she was allegedly thrown on the floor, burned and struck on the face. Cubaencuentro's report of the most recent attack was based on a conversation with Laura Pollán, a member of las Damas de Blanco, the wives of Cuban political prisoners with whom Ms. Morejón collaborates.

After the attack, Ms. Morejón reportedly walked to a police station near her home in the Plaza de la Revolución municipality but claimed that they 'hardly payed attention to her'. Subsequently she went to a hospital where a medical student informed her that whoever struck her knew martial arts. Miscelaneas de Cuba's report of the first attack also mentions 'martial arts' blows.

Here is the digital banner in which Ms. Morejón had been featured on June 1, 2009.

Strangely, Cubaencuentro.com did not report on the first attack and MiscelaneasDeCuba.net did not report on the second. Hopefully Ms. Morejón or Ms. Pollán will issue a statement clarifying if there have been two attacks or one.

UPDATED ON JUNE 10, 2009 FROM ARGENTINA

Cuba

2009-06-01T13:17:00.007-04:00

The wounded woman is Mayra Morejón Hernadez, a non-violent Cuban activist and collaborator of 'Las Damas en Blanco', the wives of political prisoners in Cuba. Photo from Misceleneas de Cuba.

Antúñez Arrested and Released, Vows to Continue

2009-05-26T15:16:00.011-04:00

Cuban dissident Jorge Luis García Pérez, Antúñez, and several others were arrested May 24 as they prepared to march to Colón cemetery to commemorate the 1972 prison death of Castro opponent Pedro Luis Boitel. According to Directorio.org, dissident journalist Carlos Serpa Maceira reported that they were also stripped of censored books and other belongings.

Others arrested included Iris Pérez Aguilera (his wife), Martha Díaz Rondón, Blas Fortún Martínez, Ernesto Mederos Arrozarena, Carlos Cordero Páez and Juan Oriol Verdecia Évora.

Antúnez had recently ended a liquid fast in which with several others he had been under siege by State Security, at his home and for over 2 months. During that period visitors were not allowed to enter or leave and those who attempted were reportedly arrested and beaten up, including 3 women.

Iris, her husband Antuñez and Santana, another dissident.
Sign reads "Won't shut up and won't leave."
Picture from Directorio.org

Pedro Luis Boitel was a university student who as an opponent of Batista's tyranny joined Castro's 26 of July Movement. However, he also opposed Castro's dictatorial pretensions and in 1961 was sentenced to 10 years in prison where he died after a 53 day hunger strike.

Pedro Luis Boitel
Photo from Wikepedia

UPDATED BELOW ON MAY 26, 2009 AT 4:15 PM FROM ARGENTINA

Antúñez and others arrested with him 2 days ago were released last night as the dissident vowed to continue with plans to commemorate Pedro Luis Boitel's death notwithstanding 'arbitrariness', that is, one supposes, arbitrary detentions.

They were apparently not charged but their cellphones were taken.

Dissident news services (outside Cuba) reporting the arrest include Directorio.org, Marti Noticias and Cubaencuentro.com. Their release was reported by martinoticias.org.

Antúnez and other Cuban Dissidents Arrested While Preparing to March

2009-05-25T15:29:00.040-04:00

This post has been updated here.

Is Congressman Serrano Confused about Cuba and Castro?

2009-05-20T09:38:00.019-04:00

Here's Puerto Rican-American Rep. José Serrano [D-NY] at an anti-Castro rally in 1992:

Yet on February 19, 2008 he's quoted by the NY Times contending:

"It is time to recognize that Castro was a great leader for his people — and move toward engagement with his successor. It is time to put the past struggles behind us and move forward together."

On January 6, 2009 he went even further by sponsoring the Cuba Reconciliation Act now being considered in the US House of Representatives.

The congressman is possibly confused, which is to an extent understandable, for who hasn't been at some point with regard to Cuba and Castro? With regard to what is just and what is not? Yet his confusion seems extreme. Hopefully he will help us understand the reasons for his change to a diametrically contrary position. Are we to think that that dictatorships and all that's necessary to keep them intact are now acceptable to him in some cases? Would one be acceptable in Haiti? In the U.S.? In Puerto Rico? Or only in Cuba?

Perhaps politically Rep. José Serrano believes he only owes his constituents an explanation.

Morally, however, I believe he owes one to the Cuban people and its over 2 million exiles, some of whom were raised in Puerto Rico and New York and still live there.

UPDATED MAY 26, 2009 FROM ARGENTINA

Hollow Chocolate Coated Habana Cubans For Sale Too

2009-05-19T13:17:00.008-04:00

The branding of Cuban identity as a sweet chocolate coated, hollow, cylindrical wafer for the purpose of commercial exploitation is not limited to Argentina's Arcor's Cofler 'Cubanitos'. Kraft Argentina's Terrabusi brand has also branded an almost identical wafer as 'Habanitos'.

What do you think?

Related: Cubans for Sale

Cubans for Sale

2009-05-16T20:40:00.011-04:00

'Little Cubans' or 'Cubanitos' are for sale thanks to Arcor, the Argentinean company that owns the 'Cofler Cubanitos' brand.

According to Arcor's website the company was founded in 1951 in Córdoba, Argentina, which also happens to be Dr. Ernesto 'Che' Guevara's' childhood home.

Arcor explains that its mission is to:

"Provide persons throughout the world the opportunity to gratify themselves with quality products at a just price in order to thereby create value for its shareholders, collaborators, clients, community, providers and environment through a project that is based on sustainable processes."

What do you think?

Cuban Police Beat Up 3 Women Attempting to Visit Dissident Antúnez (Video)

2009-05-11T23:54:00.019-04:00

While walking towards the house where Cuban dissident Jorge Luis García Pérez, Antuñez, is under siege by Cuban State Security since March, 3 Cuban women were detained and beaten up by Cuban State Security (see video below). They reported (hear audio) being taken to a wagon where they were thrown on the floor and kicked; one was struck on her breasts and kidneys, another on her mouth and the third laterally.

Will the Congressional Black Caucus now express their outrage? Jesse Jackson Sr. or Jr.? Al Sharpton? How about Oakland's Ella Baker Center for Human Rights?

Or, absent any outrage, should we assume each and all consent?

Related:
Don't Ask Stupid Questions
Report of Attempt to Visit Antúnez and Cubans under Siege in Placetas

Updated below on May 13 at 11:15 AM FROM ARGENTINA

Almost 36 hours after publication this post cannot be found by the Google search engine or the others that depend on it. The world's most used search engine continues to subtly but systematically censor news coming from Cuban dissidents related to human rights violations. Meanwhile many newspapers are plagued by gaps in their Cuba coverage (e.g. live reporting on Antúnez) and, like Google, they adopt increasingly subjective editorial criteria. As far as coverage of Cuba is concerned Google and most of the news media have been reduced to the pursuit of clicks.

Updated below on May 13 at 3:15 PM FROM ARGENTINA

My post "Cuban Police Beat Up 3 Women Attempting to Visit Dissident Antúnez (Video)" is finally found in Google's search engine but only 4 hours after reporting Google's censorship in my previous update and in this blog; and 40 hours after originally posting it.

However it cannot be found if one searches by date using 'Cuba' or 'Cuba repression' as keywords. The Cuban tyranny was elected to the United Nations Human Rights council the same day as my post. That piece of news is of course is easily found on Google.

By blocking this post for 40 hours Google made it effectively invisible in blog searches by date. In addition, given a human rights bias that favors Castro and friends while hiding posts by Castro's opponents (exiles, etc.) it effectively makes it invisible in blog searches by 'relevance'. Thus Invisible Cuba is the title of this blog.

Invisible Cuba

2009-05-04T20:04:00.001-04:00

Invisible Cuba is Desde donde estoy en el exilio's child. The title of the blog was inspired by Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man" and my strange experiences with Google.

Castro Again Accused of Drug Trafficking

2009-05-04T15:00:00.003-04:00

A former direct report of Pablo Escobar has tied Fidel and Raul Castro to a chain of narco trafficking linking Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Mexiso and Cuba. Jon Jairo Velázquez, 'Popeye', who is serving a sentence in a high security prison in Colombia claims in a video interview that Fidel Castro and Pablo Escobar had a very close relationship with Gabriel Garcia Marquez acting as their intermediary. Operational details were allegedly engineered by his brother Raul. The apparatus served to provide leftist guerrillas and narco-traffickers with weapons and the regime with $100 million. According to Velázquez 6000 kilos of 'drugs' remain 'hidden' in Cuba.

This is the second public testimony pointing to the Castros' involvement in narco-trafficking. In the late 1980's General Arnaldo Ochoa and 3 others were executed by the regime for drug trafficking after a high profile trial in which one of the defendants claimed to have been told by another that it was all supervised by the highest authorities in the regime.

The accusations are reported in a short 2 part documentary available in Telemundo51 and produced by Gina Montaner, daughter of Carlos Alberto Montaner, a well known exiled writer and publisher.

Related: What Castro Wants from Obama...as he Confesses that Retired US Military Officers say the US Needs him for Protection from Drug Lords - Part V

Return Guantanamo to Whom?

2009-05-01T17:13:00.005-04:00

Julia E. Sweig, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, has recommended that the US government return Guantanamo to 'Cuba' and convert it to a 'public health research and treatment center' where Cuba the US and other nations in the region could 'develop strategies for cooperation' in health care and research. Her views appear in an essay titled "Don't Just Close Gitmo. Give It Back." published by The Washington Post.

Ms. Sweig may in part be justifiably reacting against a radicalized sector in the US who believe in their right to sovereignty while denying it of others. One only needs to read some of the comments readers posted to her essay in the Washington Post to realize that this sector is still a reality.

Yet she is representative of a radicalized sector on the opposite extreme which shamelessly argues for US support of a totalitarian dictatorship. How else could one characterize the fact that she simply omitted millions of Castro's victims and opponents from her Guantanamo solution? Perhaps she hoped to obscure these most difficult facts by reminding us it's a move that dates 'back to the Kennedy White House' and has been "...viewed favorably by Havana ever since...".

By 'Havana'. Hmm.

Why doesn't Ms. Sweig address the fact that Havana has not been legitimately represented by anyone since Batista's and Castro's respective coups in 1952 and 1959? Is it because, as far as she is concerned, the Cuban regime's potential as a US partner in health research and treatment trumps all other considerations, just as it does for many on the US left? What do she and they mean by 'health'?

After all what is the significance of 'health treatments' in a nation whose population has diminished for 3 consecutive years and in 2008 possibly by as much as 6%? One would have expected that she would understand that health should logically manifest as more life, not less, as in a growing healthy forest.

Evidently she compartmentalizes 'health care' and 'respect for human rights' and would like us to think that, like the Nazis, a nation can be highly successful in the former while utterly failing in the latter; that violations of the former have no impact on the latter. Thus in her view it seems as if a health researcher or practitioner is in no way disqualified by abusing his patients' or subjects' human rights. Cleansing the nation of all who disagree with him has not been an issue of conscience for Castro nor does it seem to be for Ms. Sweig. Cultural genocide, ethics and health care are simply unrelated.

Perhaps she believes that by virtue of the fact that the US is also gravely guilty of human rights violations (e.g. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, etc.), it can in good conscience cooperate with the Castro tyranny on health.

Whatever the case may be with Ms. Sweig's ethics, her solution shows no evidence of having considered human rights or the millions who must constitute one of 3 parts to any solution; or that because they are the victims they should be preferentially considered as decisons are made on changes to US policy for Cuba or Guantanamo. Her solution just ignores them and hands over Guantanamo to the Cuban who for 50 years has been criminally abusing his patients and victims while endlessly boasting about 'his health care system'.

Is her solution really what the US government should do to improve its image internationally?

Of course not. A true solution must as a minimum require Castro to recognize the rights of the millions and likely majority he unabashedly calls 'gusanos' (worms). Given irreconcilable ethical differences, one possible process to implement it, in the most general terms is outlined here.

_______________________________________________________
For more on Cuba's diminishing population read 'Cuba population continued decline in 2008' and 'Abortion and Population Decline in Cuba (Updated)'
_______________________________________________________

Why can't this 64 year old cuban (below) get health care from Cuba's Castro? Why do the regime's 'social workers' tell his son they don't have any service for 'that'? Why can't he get an appointment with a neurologist? Is it perhaps because he's the father of a young member of the non-violent opposition?

Buenaventura Roberto Gonzáles Velásquez.
Photo: Courtesy of Roby González Torres, his son. Copied from Miscelaneasdecuba.net.

For information on how Google treats this and other posts on human rights in Cuba read "Google, the Mainstream News Media, Blogs and Cuba : What I thought was not so crazy after all".

UPDATED MAY 4, 2009 AT 7:55 PM FROM ARGENTINA

Abortion and Population Decline in Cuba (Updated)

2009-04-28T19:37:00.003-04:00

The Cuban regime is reportedly providing the population with methods for aborting in the convenience of their homes and with no intermediary other than a pill.

Who is being aborted? Might more than a few of these be children conceived 'accidentally' through sex with tourists?

Thus the regime offers tourists hotels, meals, transportation and for entertainment, well, sex with prostituted Cuban adolescents remedied through a private, easy, do-it-yourself abortion. That's 5 sources of income. Multiply that by 2 million tourists (or 4 if some US Citizens get their 'right'). How's that for productivity?

What a deal.

UPDATED APRIL 28 AT 8:39 PM FROM ARGENTINA

According to the Wall Street Journal's Marketwatch the Cuban regime has reported that it's population shrank by 700 thousand in 2008, about 6%, and for the third consecutive year. The Latin American Herald Tribune has also reported the accelarated decline. In another report, Cubaencuentro.com, a Spain based news website, contradicts both of the former by a substantial margin, reporting a decline of only 7,737 inhabitants.

How they could have arrived at such different figures is a story in itself given they all claim the Cuban regime's media as their source.

At the higher rate, Cuba's population will be diminished to its pre-Castro coup 1959 level in 7 years; the number of Cubans in exile will have surpassed those in Cuba in around 11; and the Castro tyranny's captive slave force will have become extinct in 15. Conceivably he will then be 97 and utterly alone, with not one Cuban left to enslave, imprison or execute; and Cubans in Cuba gone.

Socialism or death? If the larger rate is true it appears as if death will have won. Castro's post-revolutionary coup will have proven itself evolution's enemy or as Christians would put it, it will have been decisIvely condemned for attempting to subvert God's plan for man.

UPDATED BELOW ON MAY 3, 2009 AT 5:07 PM FROM ARGENTINA

While pópulation is decreasing in Cuba, support for abortion in the United States has significantly dropped. According to Pew Research the number in the US who believe abortion should be legal dropped from 54% to 46%; in men from 53% to 43% and in women from 54% to 49%. The drop occurred between August 2008 and April 2009.

Increasing recognition of the rights of a human in an embryonic stage is very good news for the United States. Evidently the nation is moving towards a more complete grasp of the meaning of the US declaration of Independence, where it states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

For Cuba's Castro these unalienable rights are evidently not yet self-evident, either for humans in an embryonic stage or beyond. One hopes he will grasp this truth too.

Split between Cubans Deepens as They Debate Over Strategy and Attitudes

2009-04-25T23:27:00.005-04:00

A curious split between some new Cuban exiles and those who have been steadily forced into exile for political motives since 1960 is deepening.

The latest confrontation has been reported by Cubaencuentro.com in Spanish accompanied by a butchered clip of Mario Diaz Balart's interview on 'One on One', almost identical to the one posted in YouTube this past week but subsequently pulled. The full 28 minute interview may be watched below (in English):

U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart on 'One on One'

Notwithstanding Diaz Balart's justified attack of Castro's tyranny one wonders what he meant when disclosing the pride he felt about his family's past. Mr. Diaz Balart's father was a 'minister' under Batista's illegitimate coup government (1952-1858), the one which with US help stepped on Cuba's democratic constitution, the crime that led to Castro's follow up tyranny.

I can understand if he loves his father but that should be a private matter. It's utterly unacceptable however that he claim to be proud of his father's collaboration with Batista's tyranny while attacking Obama's potential collaboration with Castro's. While I agree with Diaz Balart with regard to Castro, I believe he owes Cubans an explanation regarding his views on Batista's coup. If he does not condemn Batista's tyranny then he contradicts himself and should not be trusted with regard to any appeals he makes for democracy in Cuba. In such a case, we just would never know what he really means by 'democracy' or what respect and loyalty he believes is owed to a country's legitimate constitution. He can't have it both ways and Cubans should not allow him to.

Here's Mr. Diaz Balart's father's testimony before US Congress in 1960.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ironically, rather than questioning Diaz Balart's views of Batista, one unauthenticated reader posted a comment in Cubaencuentro.com referencing a letter attacking him for trivializing the Jewish holocaust in the interview. Did the writer focus on this because he would like Obama to further engage Castro's tyranny and would thus not have been consistent had he attacked Diaz Balart for his father's ties to Batista's?

Here's what said unauthenticated writer says in comment number 2:

"Analogias sin analisis como las del congresista Diaz Balart empobrecen nuestro debate nacional. Hitler es una metafora que solo debe ser usada para Hitler. El holocausto del pueblo judio no debe ser trivializado.

"No importa cuanto uno se oponga a esas practicas, ni las violaciones de derechos humanos en Cuba son comparables al holocausto judio ni es correcto llamar al embargo un genocidio.

"Necesitamos una discusion politica madura entre cubanos, en la que se discutan nuestros problemas en sus meritos, caracteristicas y especificidad, sin infantilismos ni insultos."

The writer is seemingly trying to represent his Jewish perspective on Diaz Balart's comments.

Why did he omit mentioning that the Jewish people have not lost their homeland unlike millions of Cubans? Is it perhaps because the Palestinians are the ones who've suffered a fate comparable to that of Cuban exiles? How about the thousands executed and imprisoned by Castro? The tens of thousand estimated to have died attempting to escape? The millions of Cuban families separated and dispersed all over the globe? The millions of exiled Cubans' descendants who don't even know their language and have never known their parents' homeland? The millions who have had their most elemental rights, even the freedom to move within their homeland, completely denied for half a century? What do we call all of that? What other ethnic, racial, religious or national group went through something like that for 50 years in the 20th century? 'Cultural genocide' is too light a term given that so mnany have been deprived even of their lives? What is it that it should be called since words are so important? What?

What about the fact that millions, even in the US, advocate on behalf of the criminal that has caused all of this? Even Robert Kennedy's daughter! What should they be called? What should those who want to make money on this whole thing be called? What about those who can only lament that they cannot travel and see but never utter a word about 'all of this'? What have they become? What should they be called? We, the victims, are the 'gusanos'? Who then are they? Who then are those who deny and hide and defend what's happening to the gusanera, uninterrupted, to this day?

"However, both the government of the United States and the gusanera (traitors in self-imposed exile) within and outside of Cuba have reacted with all kinds of arrogance."

Fidel Castro Reflection dated April 23, 2009

Arrogant. Gusanos (worms). Traitors. Self-imposed exile. Millions in the US and everywhere cheer him on.

How dare you.

--------------------------------------------

The confrontation between groups has been simmering for some time. Below is the video of a very recent debate (in Spanish) between a Cuban American Miami attorney versus another Cuban in the US who defends the right of Castro endorsed Cuban musicians such as Los Van Van to perform in Miami, where many who have had relatives killed or impsisoned by the regime are exiled.

The most confrontative part of the debate is towards the end. Here it is in Spanish:

UPDATED ON APRIL 26 AT 10:58 PM FROM ARGENTINA

Cuba: Preliminary Proposal for a Peace Agreement between Cubans and the End of the Embargo

2009-04-21T17:45:00.003-04:00

Ideally all Cubans could agree on living together under one ideology or another, but given the evident difficulties with that, what follows is a general outline of the minimum requirements for a peace agreement that could be implemented:

1.The Castro regime would consent for opponents of the regime inside Cuba to organize and participate in the election of representatives for all resident and exiled opponents; and would commit to not intervene in any way with this process.

2.Both sides (elected opposition representatives and the Castro regime) would meet to reach an agreement on the division of the total territory of the Cuban archipielago into at least 2 parts with the following required conditions:

--Each of the parts would be independently governed.

--All Cubans would be entitled to freely choose which part they want to live in and be provided with the means to express it under the supervision of international independent observers.

--The size of each of these 2 parts would be proportional to the number of Cubans who express their desire to inhabit or belong to it.

3.Authorized representatives of each part would sign a territorial division and mutual non-agression pact which would include all that would be forseebly necessary for peaceful convivience and also require both to jointly request an end to the US embargo.

4.Each part would be required to ratify it independently with their respective constituencies.

Please note that this is only a very general outline and that, in addition, a number of optional provisions have intentionally not been included. Let's see if we can first get somewhere with this.

I ask the Castro regime and its opponents to kindly meditate on it.

For example, I'm interested in learning what benefits and risks Cubans see for both parts? How might these be respectively increased and diminished for both sides?

Please feel free to submit any serious comments or questions you may have or to write to me at ddeeee1@gmail.com.

Please forward this proposal to others who may be interested in knowing about it or contributing ideas. Thank you very much.

Obama learning fast about Cuba and Latin America

2009-04-19T21:17:00.003-04:00

Obama Has evidently been informing himself carefully regarding Cuba and Latin America and this began to pay dividends in Trinidad, albeit to the consternation of some.

For starters, the NY Times reported that the views he had on Cuba in 2004 had changed.

"Thus, while Mr. Obama ran for the Senate in 2004 on a platform of lifting the 47-year old trade embargo with Cuba, he acknowledged he had since changed his mind, saying that 2004 “seems just eons ago.”

"He said he has “great differences” with Mr. Chávez and insisted that freedom for the Cuban people would remain the guiding principle of his foreign policy.

“That’s our lodestone, our North Star,” Mr. Obama said.

"...The test for all of us is not simply words but also deeds.

“I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments.”

The Washington Post added that Obama was ready to act again on Cuba only after the Castro regime responded beyond mere rhetoric.

"Obama noted progress, citing Raúl Castro's recent statement that his country was willing to discuss human rights issues with the United States. Cuba, Obama said, should free political prisoners, reduces its tax on remittances to the island and grant new freedoms to its citizens as a next step in thawing relations with the United States."

'New freedoms to its people'? What might that mean? Cubans had all the freedoms enjoyed by US citizens under its 1940 Constitution, the one Batista and Castro overthrew with their coups of 1952 and 1959 respectively. Hopefully Obama was referring to those freedoms.

Hopefully by 'its people' Obama meant Cuba's and not Castro's, who has never been legitimately elected and therefore has no right to govern.

Chavez shows Obama only one side of Eduardo Galeano

2009-04-19T16:50:00.003-04:00

Eduardo Galeano became today the author of the 5th best selling book in Amazon.com a day after Hugo Chavez handed Obama a copy of his 1971 book "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent". Isn't Chavez aware of Galeano's of 2003 essay: "Cuba Hurts"? If he is, why didn't he also provide Obama with a copy of that?

Is it because even Galeano, a pro-Castro and anti-Cuban dissident socialist recognizes the cruelty of his idol and the rights of non-supporters of the Cuban regime? Indeed, in said essay, Galeano agrees with Rosa Luexmbourg, another socialist, whom he quotes:

"Freedom for only the supporters of the government, however many there may be, is not freedom. Real freedom is freedom for those who think differently."

Further excerpts in English and Spanish are quoted below:

"The recent wave of executions and arrests in Cuba is ...very bad news-and very sad-for those of us ...who also believe that freedom and justice go together or not at all...

"...the Cuban government is now committing acts that, as Uruguayan writer Carlos Quijano would say, "sin against hope."

"...Without general elections, without freedom of the press and unlimited freedom of assembly, without a contest of free opinions, life stagnates and withers in all public institutions, and the bureaucracy becomes the only active element.

"My conscience clear...I do not believe in, and have never believed in single-party democracy ...Nor do I believe that the omnipotence of the state is a valid response to the omnipotence of the market."

UPDATED BELOW AT 10:15 PM FROM ARGENTINA

I shouldn't have written that Galeano is pro-Castro for that is not all certain. He's pro-Castro's 'revolution' or what should be more correctly characterized as 'Castro´s post-revolutionary coup'.

Obama Engages Cuban Tyranny as Cubans Watch Him Navigate the Shark Infested Waters

2009-04-17T22:43:00.003-04:00

After intervening in Cuba's War of Independence in 1898 without Cubans having asked, US leaders pushed the Cuban Mambises aside and granted Spain rights to administer the fledgling nation. Today, 57 years after it helped the first of 2 Cuban tyrants into place the US is deliberating on how to engage the second, presumably to further hemispheric interests.

Yet US President Barrack Obama has arrived at the Summit of the Americas in Port Of Spain, Trinidad announcing that he didn't come to debate about 1898 or 1952 or 1959-2009 but to construct the future. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton however quickly referred to part of the past declaring: "We are continuing to look for productive ways forward because we view the present policy as having failed..."

Which policy? The embargo or the one inspired by the Monroe doctrine and implemented in Cuba since at least 1898? Obama then announced: "I think it is important to recognize, given the historic suspicions, that the United States policy should not be interference in other countries."

No Monroe Doctrine it seems. Yet Obama's next statement is ambiguous: "But that also means that we can't blame the United States for every problem that arises in the hemisphere, that is part of the bargain, that is part of the change that has to take place. That is the old way, we need a new way."

So does his policy of non-interference with the tyranny actually mean that he intends to treat the tyrant the same as those whom the latter is crushing? That would align him closely with one mayor thread of the past: McKinley, Monroe, Truman and Eisenhower but not with Lincoln.

It should be obvious that non-interference cannot mean strengthening a tyranny for that certainly interferes with those Cubans struggling for liberation.

Non-interference should be only with respect to what is just; and assistance against what is unjust when asked. Obama and Clinton surely recognize that 2 million Cubans have not been 50 years in exile because things in Cuba are just or even tolerable. Accordingly, any meetings with the Castros should not happen at least until they explain why they can't respect human rights, allow a free press, respect freedom of expression, free political prisoners and not prevent the celebration of multi-party elections, prior to a meeting with Obama.

Castro writes reflections on almost a daily basis. Obama should consider asking him to explain why these changes must wait until a meeting with him. Cubans everywhere need to understand what those reasons are and I believe Obama does too. Otherwise Obama would be navigating on a raft and blindly through shark infested waters. So he should ask them.

UPDATED BELOW AT 4:11 PM ON APRIL 18, 2009 FROM ARGENTINA

If Obama and Clinton consider US policy in Cuba not merely since the embargo but from its beginning in 1898 they will see a different picture. In said context the embargo is a clear break from a past in which the US first supported the Spaniards against the Cubans after Cuba's 1898 War of Independence; and later supported the tyranny that brought us to where we are today, that is, Batista's. If it were to support Castro's tyranny by unilaterally lifting the embargo it would return to that past.

I believe Obama is an honest man and that for him engaging Castro does not translate into becoming his accomnplice. All the contrary. He wants to go beyond the 50 year rhetoric that stalls and enter critical and liberating dialogue with the regime. That's why he has publicly recognized that it will take time and cautioned that he's 'not interested in talking for the sake of talking'.

Cuba's Raul Castro Ready to Talk about 'Everything' ...but with Obama

2009-04-17T12:43:00.003-04:00

Just a few days ago Ricardo Alarcón president of the Castro regime's 'National Assembly' declared there were no political prisoners in Cuba. Yet yesterday Raul Castro announced he was ready to talk about them. Hmm. Confusing signals.

Switching yesterday from bad cop (Fidel) to good cop, Mr. Raul Castro declared he was willing to talk about everything: political prisoners, freedom of the press. He cautioned that this could only occur however 'without casting the slightest shadow over Cuba's sovereignty' or 'without the slightest violation of the Cuban people's right to self determination'.

Here's Mr. Raul Castro responding to Obama yesterday:

As expected, he was addressing President Obama and the United States, not the millions of Cubans who charge him and his brother precisely for usurping our right to self-determination. Somehow he and his brother have fallen under the delusion that they and Obama were elected to represent the people of Cuba.

Obama does not appear to suffer from such a delusion. Here's his response:

What Castro Wants from Obama...as he Attempts to Divert Attention from his Crimes to Climate Change and Financial Crisis - Part VI

2009-04-16T18:08:00.003-04:00

Castro of course may forever try anything (through his emissaries in Trinidad) to shift the subject to just issues like human driven climate change and world capitalism's financial crisis. Obama will surely have no problem addressing any of these, with the caveat that unlike Castro, he has no grave crimes to hide.

Hiding his crimes behind an array of just causes to distract the world's attention is the ploy Castro's used for 50 years to get the sympathy he needs while he crushes Cubans. "The executioner's hand is always well hidden" (B. Dylan).

In Trinidad, if attacked by Chavez and Castro's other representatives, it'll be up to Obama to insist on critical analysis and call a spade a spade as thus far he has eloquently done.

Castro might then shift from flattering to ideologically vilifying Obama; that's all he'd have left, for again (except for the stand he shares with Castro on abortion), the latter has committed no crimes. In addition, it will be very hard for Castro to accomplish this inside Cuba.

The discussion would then open up to all the real issues, not just Castro's favorites.

UPDATE 11:15 PM FROM ARGENTINA

The Washington Post has just published an eye opening editorial for the blind entitled "Wrong Subject" where it argues that it's: "...easier to demand concessions for Cuba than to defend Venezuelan democracy." It's worth reading even for those who are not in denial about Cuba.

What Castro Wants from Obama...as he Confesses that Retired US Military Officers say the US Needs him for Protection from Drug Lords - Part V

2009-04-16T17:41:00.003-04:00

In today's reflection Castro argued that even retired US military officers are on his side, that they finally recognize that they need him to protect the US against drug lords. I wonder what Castro's General Ochoa would have said about that, had he not been executed by Castro presumably for drug trafficking.

Ochoa was a widely popular and charismatic military leader and Commander of Castro's armed forces in Angola. Indeed in his trial a defendant testified that he had been led to believe that drug trafficking was approved by the regime's leadership.

In the new role he aspires to as the hemisphere's drug czar, who might Castro now really want executed and why?

You can watch the defendant's testimony below.

Did the witness' (on video) testimony lead to an independent investigation about narcotrafficking at the head of the regime? Of course not. How could it? There is no real separation of powers; everything leads back to Castro. No sane Cuban would consider requesting that the Castros be investigated for narcotrafficking or anything else for that would be a counter-revolutionary act by Castro standards. Whoever would have dared to request it would likely have ended up like General Ochoa.

UPDATED (BELOW) ON MAY 4, 2009 FROM ARGENTINA

"A former direct report of Pablo Escobar has tied Fidel and Raul Castro to a chain of narco trafficking ..." Read Castro Again Accused of Drug Trafficking.

What does Castro want from Obama...as he Blames the US for Stealing 'Human Resources' - Part IV

2009-04-16T17:38:00.003-04:00

Castro shamelessly blames the US for 'stealing human resources'. He wants exiles in Cuba but as slaves, that is, working for his illegitimate state for $15 monthly in whatever task he wishes while threatening them to remain silent about his presumed right to own them. When Cubans try to make a living on their own or non-violently object they are of course publicly condemned by his regime as worms, corrupt, counter-revolutionaries in order to incite to incite mobs against them.

He claims he does not want handouts and yet he slaps a 20% tax on any remittances in US dollars of exiles to their families. Not interested in money and handouts and yet taxing 'mercenaries' and their families? Again, according to the Oxford dictionary a 'mercenary' is one 'primarily concerned with money or other reward'. Who is the mercenary, the thousands who charitably send a remittance to family or the one who taxes it, King George?

What does Castro want from Obama...as he attacks US imperialism and shifts focus to Bay of Pigs and School of the Americas- Part III

2009-04-16T17:07:00.003-04:00

Hoping to fend off attacks on his legitimacy, Castro dedicated a whole reflection to past US interventions in Cuba and Latin America as if opposing a tyranny was comparable to overthrowing a democratically elected government.

Justifiably he condemns the School of the Americas and tortures in Guantanamo probably hoping that with this he can neutralize attacks on his harassment, silencing, imprisonment, torture. and execution of those who have dared to question his legitimacy the past 50 years. He apparently reasons that since the US has done it, he can do it too.

Additionally, but no less importantly, he wants to hide the virtual slavery of Cuba's workers who (unless they are there to protect him) work for an average of US$15 monthly in jobs determined by Castro's illegitimate state.

He fails to acknowledge however that Obama is against torture or the persecution of political opponents or that while he objects to unregulated capitalism he does not condone Castro's brand of slavery. As far as one can tell, Obama is no McCarthy or King George III.

Castro has called Obama's lifting of some restrictions a 'positive step' but he has certainly not expressed joy at the idea of having to share Cuba with compatriots in exile. Indeed, he has still not announced that in response to Obama's concession he will stop attempting to prevent Cubans outside in or those inside out.

Exiles are coming back? Those mercenaries? Castro focused his reflection on the fact that under Kennedy and the CIA's umbrella, Cuban exiles attempted to rid Cuba of his incipient dictatorship him in 1961. A mercenary, according to the Oxford dictionary is (as an adjective) 'primarily concerned with money or other reward' or (as a noun) is 'a hired soldier in foreign service'. That describes Castro's relationship with the Soviet Union rather well but not the Cuban exiles who cruised into the Bay of Pigs (Playa Girón) to free their homeland of a second consecutive dictatorship. These were family men who with only weeks of training and the compelling purpose to reestablish democracy in their homeland were ill advised to accept the assistance of the CIA. If anything it was an act of desperation given that they were not prepared, were not career soldiers by any stretch of the imagination and had no control whatsoever over the air support they had been promised but never received. Blindly heroic, they assumed a tremendous and miscalculated risk which all paid for either with death, imprisonment and shattered family lives; and without achieving their purpose.

Castro is slandering these Cuban patriots because it was he who most certainly behaved then as the mercenary, the one 'primarily concerned with money or other reward'. Yes, Castro wanted money, a deal, like now and that is a fact. He was willing then, as he is now, to sell Cubans for money or other merchandise. He kept them for ransom and released them only after it was delivered. He had and has no respect whatsoever for his compatriots, publicly and frequently characterizing them as worms or merchandise to be traded in the market with those he declares enemies and even with friends.

CUBAN BAY OF PIGS SOLDIERS RECEIVED BY THEIR FAMILIES AND THOUSANDS OF OTHERS IN 1961 AFTER BEING SOLD AND THEREAFTER RELEASED BY CASTRO ('MERCENARIES' HE SAYS)

UPDATED ON APRIL 26 AT 12:13 AM FROM ARGENTINA

What does Castro want from Obama ...and Obama from Castro? - Part II

2009-04-16T16:49:00.003-04:00

In his (now) 5 reflections since Obama's limited lifting of restrictions on Cuba, Castro alludes to an array of issues but, unaccustomed to dialogue, has thus far disregarded the invitation to discuss the civil rights of Cubans, political prisoners and democratic elections. That's either not good for appetizers or not relevant to Castro for he would surely be deprived of power and could even end up being tried, convicted and imprisoned or placed under house arrest.

Not surprisingly, as he prepares to meet hemispheric leaders in Trinidad today, Obama gently touched on Castro's omissions in an Op Ed published today.

"Each of our countries has pursued its own democratic journey, but we must be joined together in our commitment to liberty, equality, and human rights. That is why I look forward to the day when every country in the hemisphere can take its seat at the table consistent with the Inter-American Democratic Charter. And just as the United States seeks that goal in reaching out to the Cuban people, we expect all of our friends in the hemisphere to join together in supporting liberty, equality, and human rights for all Cubans."

Castro surely knows he can't forever avoid what he omits to address but he appears to be content with maintaining the status quo as long as possible for it has provided him with unchecked power in Cuba and a massive following from hemispheric leaders angry at past US foreign policy.

Yet it won't be that easy for him to get away with it this time given that Obama does not share his predecessors' views or foreign policies. Obama can agree with much of what Castro supposedly stands for without making further concessions for as long as Castro stubbornly fails to satisfactorily address Cuban political prisoners, civil rights and democratic elections.

What does Castro Want from Obama? Dialog or Subservience?

2009-04-15T13:31:00.003-04:00

Judging from the 4 reflections he's published since the announcement on the lifting of some restrictions on Cuba 2 days ago, it's not clear whether Castro wants to dialog and negotiate with Obama or dictate, or quantums of both.

Obama is fortunate not to have been born in Cuba for he would surely be in grave danger of being silenced for acting on his political beliefs.

At this point the question seems to be not what Obama should respond (he already has), but how. Perhaps the US President should guide himself by what he would do if he were running for office against Castro in the U.S. or Cuba. There are substantial differences of course, for would Castro be willing to debate him or other Cubans on Cuban National TV? Perhaps he should ask Castro what would happen if he were Cuban and attempt to make his political views publicly known throughout the nation, encourage others to follow him, form a political party and call elections.

In my next few posts and if all goes well, I'll be posting my reflections on Castro's 4 latest reflections, that is, those he's published since the announcement. In the meantime, you can read Castro's reflections yourself. Only 2 of the 4 have been translated by Granma up until now. These are the links:

"On the blockade, not one word was said" - April 13, 2009 6:12 p.m.

"Days that cannot be forgotten" April 14, 2009 - 11:15 a.m.

"¿Tiene la OEA derecho a existir?" April 14 de 2009 - 4:43 p.m.

"No hay descanso para el mundo" April 14 de 2009 -7:02 p.m.

Obama serves it into Cuba and Latin America's Castro side of the Court

2009-04-13T17:30:00.003-04:00

No, this is probably not like Richard Nixon's China Ping Pong diplomatic initiative in 1971. Hopefully it's a real break from the past and human rights will not take a back seat this time.

As major newspapers (WSJ, WP, NY Times) report today that Obama has ordered the lifting of restrictions on Cuban Americans wanting to visit their native land, the uncensored Cuban exile online media reported that a Puerto Rican (and therefore U.S. citizen) was violently arrested 2 days ago in Holguín, Cuba. Her crime was to publicly question Ricardo Alarcón regarding the constant violation of human rights by the tyranny and the illegitimacy of the constitution imposed on the Cuban people. Alarcón is the president of the Castro regime's so called 'National Assembly'. The US or other international media has yet to report on the Puerto Rican's arrest or his whereabouts.

Why should anyone believe that Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba and daring to question the regime's legitimacy and repression will experience a different fate than said Puerto Rican American? Now that the Obama Administration has lifted restrictions on Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba from the U.S., what will it do if any are arrested for doing what this Puerto Rican American has done?

In addition, how and what will most of the world know if Cuban Americans traveling to their native land are subsequently imprisoned for political dissent? What response can they expect from the US and international media?

Oh, that's easy, the Wall Street Journal has now reported that the "...Obama administration will allow U.S. telecom companies and other providers to apply for licenses to do business in Cuba, including setting up television and mobile phone service..."

Does that mean that the same US and international media that has not reported even bothering to visit Antuñez and the other dissidents will keep US and world public opinion informed? Does it mean that the same media which hundreds of millions access through Google's news and blog search engine is henceforth going to prioritize human rights, even if it's only about Cubans?

Does it also mean that Cubans on the island, the majority of whom live on salaries of US $15 per month will soon be able to afford access to the Internet? Does it mean that the regime will not block Internet sites or TV stations with information that oppose it or question its legitimacy?

Furthermore, will all Cubans be allowed in by Castro (or just those that will keep silent)?

It almost certainly does not mean any of the foregoing.

Meanwhile Antúnez and the 4 dissidents in Placetas presumably under a state of siege by state security and prevented from access to liquid nutrients have reported that one of them is in a precarious medical state. Accordingly they have requested that a physician selected by them be allowed to assist her while expressing their fear and objection to any physicians that might be provided by the regime.

CREDIT FOR OBAMA

One must recognize that unlike some US Congressmen the Obama Administration has been cautiously responding to internal and international pressure to 'normalize' relations with Castro (like Truman and Eisenhower did in 1952-1959 with Batista). Fulfilling his promise to Cuban Americans, his administration has consistently insisted that prior to normalizing relations, political prisoners must be released, free speech and civil rights guaranteed and genuinely democratic elections held.

But what else does 'normalizing relations' mean? How can relations with a regime accused of grave crimes against its people ever be 'normal'? Is the Obama administration somehow preparing to join the chorus of Latin American presidents led by Lula (Brazil) and Chavez (Venezuela) and pursue a policy of obstruction of justice in Cuba? Is it going to implicitly recognize 'Castro' as 'Cuba' and thereby tragically reinforce the precedent of normalized relations with future tyrannies that may yet emerge (in Latin America or Cuba)?

Will it expect like so many others that Cuban Americans just accept that the Castros may have committed (and continue to do so unabashed) whatever crimes and yet be not only protected by US and Latin America presidents from any accountability but be engaged as agents of just change and even pillars of justice? Are Cubans expected to approve of the legitimization of criminals just because as a result of the totalitarian state imposed upon them they have not been not able to bring them to trial yet? Is this what some mean by 'reconciliation'?

Surely this is not Obama's project but what then does the The Washington Post mean when it contends that "... as a candidate, Obama promised to seek closer relations with Cuba, and ...as president, he has signaled that he intends to move toward a greater openness...."

No, the WP has it wrong, I don't believe that Obama intends to become the regime's accomplice even as the temptation and pressure to succumb to a false fix is being blatantly broadcasted everywhere; except of course in that portion of the Cuban community exiled for political reasons and in the legitimate non-violent opposition protesting bare handed within.

SHIFT IN STRATEGY THAT BEGAN WHEN?

The Cuban American National Foundation recently published an intelligent and practical proposal that suggests, for the most part, a more coherent path to future US-Cuba relations; one that allies the US government with those Cuban people pushing for democracy and not with criminals posing as liberators and revolutionaries or its supporters.

While the proposal could be improved, its recommendation for a shift in the US policy since 1959 is a step in the right direction and it is this that the Obama Administration appears to be listening to. I would suggest that the shift must go further back, that is, it must also change the course taken in 1952 and in 1898. The people of the US and Cuba need to build the basis for a true, lasting, just and mutually respectful friendship, not one between legitimately elected leaders in one and a tyrant in the other; not one where the more powerful party in the relationship capitalizes on the vulnerability of the other. Hopefully that day is on its way.

It should go without saying that the same applies to Latin America, Canada, Spain and the rest of the world, for unlike the Obama Administration and with few exceptions (e.g. Eastern Europe), they have turned their back on the Cuban people and joined forces with the illegitimate unelected regime which continues to pretend to permanently enslave us.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Cuba's constitution was approved in 1940, consolidating it as a sovereign democratic republic, requiring separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers and guaranteeing all of the civil liberties that have been denied by the current totalitarian state for the past 50 years. This constitution was violated by Batista through a coup in 1952 but only 15 days later Harry Truman normalized relations, recognizing him as Cuba's legitimate leader and Eisenhower continued with this policy until he was forced to abandon it.

Batista was ousted by a massive popular uprising coordinated by a student movement, urban dissenters and Fidel Castro's armed 26 of July movement. After its success, while recognizing Cuba's constitution, Castro immediately and treacherously began violating it. He unconstitutionally appointed presidents, imprisoned revolutionaries who had fought by his side, repressed civil liberties and freedom of the press, installed government informers in every corner and thereby by 1976 had consolidated a communist totalitarian state.

First tens, then hundreds of thousands fled while thousands were executed and imprisoned. Over two million citizens or 33% of Cuba's 1959 population eventually were forced into exile; however the first generation of these has died and the second is close to Castro's age. The remaining exiles are a mix that includes those who were exiled as children in 1960 (and their descendants) as well as thousands who were born in Cuba after the birth of Castro's 'revolutionary' totalitarian state and subsequently either fled or were sent abroad for propaganda purposes. Tens of thousands are estimated to have died in Caribbean shark infested waters attempting to flee.

With his totalitarian state consolidated, a substantial portion of the population in exile and all media under his control, Castro claimed that a new constitution had been almost unanimously approved in 1976. It was later modified by his regime in 1992, 2000 and 2002. Attempts to modify it by other Cubans have been regularly ignored for under said new 'constitution', the regime's 'National Assembly' is the only one with the right to do so, even though they are not legitimately elected by the Cuban people (including exiles).

Yet Venezuela's elected president Chavez, evidently hoping to pressure Obama, recently asked the world: "Why does Cuba continue to be left out of the Summit of the Americas, if Cuba is a friend of Latin American and Caribbean countries?"

Who is 'Cuba' for you, President Chavez? Who is the one leaving the majority of the Cuban people out if not you and your ilk?

UPDATED APRIL 14 AT 12:50 A.M FROM ARGENTINA

Google, the Mainstream News Media, Blogs and Cuba : What I thought was not so crazy after all

2009-04-03T16:26:00.014-04:00

The news media has traditionally been considered the 4th power in any democratic republic. With so many newspapers facing closure however, Google, blogs and the social networks are moving in to drive the formation of public opinion. So much is known. What is less understood is what it means. How will having a search engine in charge of effectively determining the news people read impact public opinion, political decisions, world events and human rights?

It's historically self-evident that bias and prejudice can result in people being abused or killed so one would think that Google, which prides itself as being a 'force for the good', would be careful to avoid it. Yet is that possible? Can one really suppose that Google's engineers, or their search algorithms, are free of moral bias. Hardly. This would not perhaps be a problem if Google were not a near monopoly but if to be visible in the world one must be found on Google, then for some it can be a matter of life and death that Google be a force for the good.

GOOGLE AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA'S PREJUDICED COVERAGE OF 'CUBA'

As Congress deliberates US policy towards Cuba this week, the 7 events below have been reported by at least someone on Cuba:

ONE: Former political prisoner Antúnez (Jorge Luis Garcia Perez) and 4 other dissidents have been under a state of Siege by Cuban State Security for over a week and are not allowed to obtain the liquid nutrients they need to survive. See my posts on this issue here, here, here, and here.

TWO: ON March 30 Amnesty International attempted to alert the world to the life threatening situation Antúnez and the other dissidents are confronting as I write.

THREE: On March 29 Yoani Sanchez and about 10 others surprised the world when they staged an unexpected performance at Havana's Art Biennial. They did a parody of Fidel Castro and took a free speech swing at the totalitarian state. They were subsequently accused by Castro of counter tyrannical 'provocation'.

FOUR: Politically motivated arrests have been reported almost daily in the Cuban exile media (see Miscelaneas de Cuba.com). IN march 2009 alone 300 acts of political intimidation were reported by the dissident Cuban Human Rights Council.

FIVE: On March 27, 1000 former Cuban political prisoners, forced into exile, have announced they will meet to wake up the world about Castro's assault on Cubans' human rights for 50 years.

SIX: On March 29 Castro's regime and the US opened a US-Cuba art exhibit with works from New York's Chelsea.

SEVEN: The US Senate and the House of Representatives are deciding on whether to pass legislation to allow all US citizens to travel to Cuba (The Cuba Travel Act - S. 428), the lifting of other restrictions and even reconciliation with Castro (The Cuba Reconciliation Act (H.R. 188).

Of these Google and renowned US and international media powerhouses such as the New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Los Angeles Times, and The BBC reported only on 2, that is, on events 6 and 7, but hardly or not at all on 1 to 5 even though people's lives are evidently and imminently in danger and news on this issue would or should certainly influence US and world opinion on the last 2 issues. Nor did financial considerations prevent these renowned papers from attending and reporting on an Art Fair in Havana. They has their journalists and camarographers right there. Yet not one took the 2 hour trip to see Antúnez and the 4 other dissidents under siege by Cuban State Security at the latter's home in Placetas.

So what is driving this prejudiced media coverage with respect to Cuba? Could it be that the mainstream news media is so financially stretched that it no longer has sufficient resources to cover Cuba? No. Well I really mean, Google doesn't think so. Granted that Google's reporting is constantly in flux, but that's not the case with the 'secret' search algorithms it implements to determine what is relevant and to what. Database programmers and any intelligent person will understand immediately that human decisions and biases and not some random or chance mechanisms determine what is found when searching a database and that Google is no exception.

Accordingly I attempted a few searches last night to get a ballpark idea of just how Google, the major newspapers and the blogs are informing the world about Cuba.

After all, we have US senators like Richard Lugar who without a blink are quite willing to toss out any considerations of conscience to satisfy what he believes the world believes should be the US policy towards Cuba. On Lugar's very recent letter to Obama the Washington Post reported:

"The nearly 50-year-old economic embargo against Cuba, Lugar (R-Ind.) said in a March 30 letter to Obama, puts the United States at odds with the views of the rest of Latin America, the European Union and the United Nations, and 'undermines our broader security and political interests in the Western Hemisphere'."

RESULTS OF LAST NIGHT'S INVESTIGATION

Upon performing a Google news search for 'Cuba' last night 2, not 7, big stories appeared on the first search page. Indeed, Google reported an astounding 517 news articles on 'Rep. Barbara Lee heading to Cuba to talk tourism and trade'. It sure looks like according to Google and the mainstream media the forthcoming vote in Congress is a done deal Americans get ready. We're back in Cuba just like the good old Batista days.

Granted, Google concurrently reported that there were supposedly 113 stories on how an unexpected performance by Yoani Sanchez and several others at the Cuban Art Biennial had sparked a 'Cuban free speech debate' (news story # 3 above). However, upon checking it out I discovered that this was a distortion. There were only 5 that were about that particular event. The others were unrelated as of last night.

So what did a Google news search on 'Cuba' reveal about what is happening to Antúnez and the 5 dissidents (story # 1 above). Of the major newspapers only the Miami Herald had published anything and they didn't even visit the site of the siege. The Herald's was the only story on Antúnez, that Google reported in the first 25 pages of a search for news on Cuba. Amnesty International's story on Antúnez didn't appear either when the Google news search term was 'Cuba'.

So I did a Google news search specifying the key words 'Antúnez Amnesty International' and this resulted in exactly 1 news article, but in German. Not relevant to Cuba says Google and what's left of the mainstream media.

So with the silence of the mainstream media on Cuba human rights issues we are left to what the blogs tell us but what does Google do in this case?

I challenge anyone to do a Google blog search (exclusively) using the keyword 'Cuba' to see how much you can find on human rights or morality, or on the first 5 Cuba stories of the week I reported above.

That's precisely what I did only to discover that nothing resembling morality, human rights or democracy (all fundamental human and US values) on Cuba can be found until the page 7 of Google's blog search results on that keyword ('Cuba'). Nothing on the 5 news stories listed above can be found on the first 25 pages Google blog search pages for 'Cuba'.

It was only on the 7th page of Google's blog search results that I first found something, a listing of a Diario de Las Américas' story arguing that travel to Cuba will not bring democracy. Then on page 8 there's Mark Masferrer's post: 'Uncommon Sense: Ban on Cuba travel puts US. on the right side'. Uncommon indeed, for in Google's Cuba it's again silence on morality and human rights until blog search results page 12 where I found "Brave souls from Cuba plan to meet", the story of 1000 former Cuban political prisoners, forced into exile, meeting to denounce the tyranny. Surely this would be something important for the world and Washington to know right now, right? Not really says Google and the bloggers it prioritizes.

Only on page 13 of the search results did I find a listing of a blog story on Castro accusing Yoani Sanchez and her friends of "provocation" at the Art Biennial (story #3 above). On page 15 Google once again cites Mark Masferrer Uncommon Sense, this time with a story arguing against a renowned pro-Castro author and blogger who contended that experiencing hunger has actually been good for Cubans. Makes Cubans resilient. (She should consider trying her own medicine for 50 years along with a $15 a monthly Cuban salary for anything else she may perhaps need. )

Then Google was silent again for 5 more search pages, that is, until page 20 of the search results on 'Cuba' where it finally listed a story Amnesty International's 3 day old alert to the world on the urgency and gravity of the situation Antúnez and the 5 dissidents under siege are facing (story #1) . How's that for obstruction of justice when it comes to Cuba human rights by the world's news/blog search almost monopoly!

I then continued until page 25 but found nothing else. That's what Google had on human rights, morality and democracy in its first 250 listings last night (10 listings for each of 25 search pages). Of 250 stories listed on a Google blog search for 'Cuba', only 6 (and beginning only on page 7) of the search results were about human rights, morality or democracy. That's approximately 2% of all listings on 'Cuba' in those first of 25 of 100 pages of search results. The other 98% of the blog stories listed were more or less about how Americans were packing their bags to return to the good old Batista days.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: THERE ARE 5 CASES THIS WEEK SUGGESTIVE OF CENSORSHIP BY GOOGLE AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ON ISSUES OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CUBA

Arguably the reason I didn't find anything about Antúnez, human rights and the morality of lifting restrictions on Cuba, etc. is that no one is writing about it on the blogs. To test this hypothesis I did a search on Google blogs for 'Antúnez Placetas'. There were 15 pages of blogs covering it (150 listings!); however, practically all of them seemed to be written by Cubans opposed to tyranny, like me. Why weren't they listed in the first 25 pages of a Google blog search on 'Cuba'?

I then searched for 'Cuba morality' and couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that my post yesterday, "The Morality of Lifting Restrictions on Cuba: The China Question, The China Lesson", was ranked 2nd in relevance'. So what could this mean? Searching for this same post on Google ---> blogs, but using only using 'Cuba' as the search term it was not to be found in Google's first 25 blog search result pages on 'Cuba'. One would actually have to be interested in the human rights of Cubans to find it and use 2 keywords 'Cuba morality', not just 'Cuba', to discover it. Evidently Google presumes that those searchers interested in 'Cuba' alone are not, but that says more about Google's values then about its searchers for news or blogs about Cuba.

Connect the dots and what does one get: The most plausible conclusion is that the human rights of Cubans and morality are just not central issues when it comes to the general topic of 'Cuba', as far as Google is concerned. Otherwise how can one explain that those 15 pages of blogs on Antúnez and my own post on morality did not appear listed in those first 25 pages of Google's blog search results on 'Cuba'?

Google can kiss goodbye to its claim to be 'a force for the good' if something further happens to Antúnez or to Yoani Sanchez and the dissidents who took that free speech swing at Castro 5 days ago.

UPDATE - MAY 2, 2009 11:20 AM FROM ARGENTINA

The problem continues. While the piece you are reading is very visible in Google blogs, one that I posted yesterday entitled "Return Guantanamo to Whom? has been blocked, that is, it's not listed under blogs either by dates or relevance. I have checked 5, 8 and 18 hours later using the keywords 'Guantanamo' or the whole title 'Return Guantanamo to Whom' and several other combinations but none yielded results on Google blogs, although one can find it on the web if one really tries.

Maybe Google should subscribe to my Atom feeds since it was reported there in seconds.

Google is a little more subtle than Castro's Granma, for it freely and conveniently publishes blogs on human rights violations in Cuba but then expertly hides them from view.

I obtained slightly better results with www.metacrawler.com/ but that searches the web and not just blogs. Not surprisingly it obtained its results from Google's database.

UPDATE - MAY 3, 2009 1:24 AM FROM ARGENTINA

I just checked and 'Return Guantanamo to Whom' is finally visible on searching Google ==> blogs 'return guantanamo to whom', by date. The only problem is that I discovered it at 1:17 AM the next day, about 31 hours after posting it. Given that I had checked 18 hours after posting and it wasn't there, Google took 18 to 31 hours to list said blog post by date. This fact must be evaluated in the context that I had to report it in this blog post you are reading, which I know has a high visibility (at least up until now).

Why does Google (at least temporarily) block the visibility of blog posts that denounce human rights abuses in Cuba, while immediately posting those that promote it as a tourist destination, etc.?

UPDATE BELOW ON MAY 5, 2009 AT 4:35 PM FROM ARGENTINA

Almost 2 and 1/2 hours after posting "Gesture from Castro: Hotel Internet Access Now Out of Bounds for Cubans" one still can't find it, sorting by date, using the keywords 'Cuba Internet' in Google ==>blogs.

Nor can one find Cubaencuentro's news report on which it was based if one searches, with those same keywords, by date, on Google==> News.

An almost duplicate post titled "Hotel Internet Access Now Out of Bounds for Cubans" in Invisible Cuba (my new blog) is also invisible in Google blogs if searched with the keywords 'Cuba Internet'.

What else could one have expected from Google when it comes to human rights violations?

UPDATE BELOW ON MAY 13, 2009 AT 11:23 AM FROM ARGENTINA

Almost 36 hours after publishing "Cuban Police Beat Up 3 Women Attempting to Visit Dissident Antúnez (Video)" it cannot be found by the Google search engine or the others that depend on it. The world's most used search engine continues to subtly but systematically censor news coming from Cuban dissidents related to human rights violations. Meanwhile many newspapers are plagued by gaps in their Cuba coverage (e.g. live reporting on Antúnez) and, like Google, they adopt increasingly subjective editorial criteria. As far as coverage of Cuba is concerned Google and most of the news media have been reduced to the pursuit of clicks.

Updated below on May 13 at 3:15 PM FROM ARGENTINA

My post "Cuban Police Beat Up 3 Women Attempting to Visit Dissident Antúnez (Video)" is finally found in Google's search engine but only 4 hours after reporting Google's censorship in my previous update and in this blog; and 40 hours after originally posting it.

However it cannot be found if one searches by date using 'Cuba' or 'Cuba repression' as keywords. The Cuban tyranny was elected to the United Nations Human Rights council the same day as my post. That piece of news is of course is easily found on Google.

By blocking my post for 40 hours Google made it effectively invisible in blog searches by date. In addition, given a human rights bias that favors Castro and friends while hiding posts by Castro's opponents (exiles, etc.) it effectively makes it invisible in blog searches by 'relevance'.

UPDATED ON JUNE 21, 2009 BELOW, FROM ARGENTINA

Now Cubanos vs. Muchos, (in Spanish) posted on June 18, 2009, is thus far (3 days and 3 hours later) being blocked within Argentina by Google's search engine for blogs.

In addition, on June 18 Argentina extended my permit to reside here for only one more month, that is, until after parlamientary elections. Previously, they had been renewing it for 3 months at a time.

UPDATE JULY 22 - Argentina extended my residency permit on July 21.

Google has blocked my 2 latests posts in English and 1 Spanish from blog searches within Argentina.

TRY FINDING THE POSTS BELOW WITHIN GOOGLE BLOGS!
Legitimacy Question Lingers for Honduras and Cuba
Obama Openly Woos Cuba's Military Tyranny
Obama Corteja Tiranía Militar de Cuba

The Morality of Lifting Restrictions on Cuba: The China Question, The China Lesson

2009-04-02T00:31:00.006-04:00

Pro Cuba-travel and anti-embargo enthusiasts in Congress and elsewhere maintain that it's contradictory to restrict trade relations and travel by US citizens to Cuba while according China a most favorite nation treatment. No one seriously doubts that China does not respect human rights and mercilessly crushes dissidents, except of course, the Chinese government. The BBC recently published a story about the Chinese government contending that a video presumably showing Tibetans being beaten up by Chinese police, was a fabrication by the Dalai Lama. You can see the video below.

While Castro does not deny Chinese brutality, he recently reportedly said that dissidents in China should not go unpunished, suggesting of course that Cuban dissidents can expect the same.

Prior to Richard Nixon's 1971 ping pong initiative to normalize relations with China there was hardly any trade between both countries. Why did Nixon, a crusading anti-communist want to change things? For moral reasons? Obviously not. He was surely aware that China's communist dictatorship repressed dissidents and unabashedly embraced values contrary to the US Bill of Rights. Nixon was undoubtedly motivated by the cheap labor and increased profitability China could provide US manufacturers and assumed that the US would forever wield the upper hand. No one can seriously argue that the US president ever intended to morally convert China to the ethics cherished by a primarily Christian US citizenry. The moral question of strengthening an egregious violator of human rights was either addressed superficially or not at all. We'll convert them with capitalism. That was the idea then with China as it is now with Cuba.

In 1979, just 8 years after Nixon began his diplomatic effort, trade between both nations grew to $2.4 billion. By 1994 it was $48 billion and by 2000 China had become the US' fourth largest supplier with total trade reaching $116 billion: $100 billion imported by the U.S. and only $16 billion exported. Between 2000 and 2008 US imports from China almost tripled to $338 billion, while exports reached only $71 billion. In addition, China is now the US' largest creditor and as of January 2009, it held $739 billion in US treasury bonds.

Thus 38 years after Nixon's strictly economic decision, it's evident that China has the upper hand providing both capital for the US Government and goods for its people.

However, their human rights abuses remain undeterred. Indeed, now they argue that their accusers have confused right with wrong.

"The U.S. claim is totally inaccurate and confuses right and wrong and is unacceptable to China,"

was the explanation when they recently harassed a US ship in international waters. The Dalai lama got no better treatment:

"The Dalai Lama clique is confusing right and wrong," said Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu.

responding to the Dalai Lama's quest for Tibetan cultural autonomy.

Thusly the moral question has popped right back in, the one the US never addressed in 1971, but now China is the one raising it.

Yet economic considerations continue to trump all moral ones for some people in the U.S. It's questionable that even as the nation finds itself near the edge of a precipice sufficient Americans believe that the morality of a foreign policy decision has any impact on its destiny, just like they failed to in 1971 when Nixon initiated his ping pong diplomacy.

Hopefully this will change very soon. However, in yesterday's Freedom to Travel to Cuba Press Conference, the first moral issue mentioned by the Congressmen was that a US citizen's 'right' to travel to Cuba to ride a bike had been violated by the US government. Apparently that was the extent of what was morally at stake for them, or as much as they wanted to address on the moral front. Omit this and omit that about Cuba; otherwise this bill will never pass. The conference ended with the infantile suggestion that the US should just try something 'different' in Cuba and for these Congressmen that apparently means sending a couple of million of US tourists helplessly hoping that somehow they will bring about respect for human rights.

Travel to Cuba. Champagne bottles are being chilled and the media is in a frenzy.

Yes that is China and that other one is Cuba and so what: this is Rome.

The video is also available at the BBC site here.

As expected, China has blocked YouTube.

The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Press Conference

2009-04-01T01:17:00.004-04:00

It will be interesting to see what finally happens this week in both houses of the US Congress as they debate on The Cuba Reconciliation Act ((H.R. 188)) and the Cuba Travel Act ((S.428)). Indeed, perhaps we'll even be able to gauge just how much attitudes and policy towards Cuba and Cubans have changed in the past 111 years, that is, since 1898. Will Congress decide to once again invade and occupy Cuba, as in 1898, but this time with millions of tourists? Will they again decide to support a tyrant, as they regrettably did with Batista? Or will they support the return of the legitimate democracy Cubans had between 1940 and 1952?

Surely some of those who will engage in debate are saving ammunition for the live event but today's Freedom to Travel to Cuba Press Conference (video below) provided clips of the type of spurious arguments we might expect.

One congressman kept repeating that the US should stop 'punishing US citizens'. Punishing US citizens? Of course, while that has not been the intent, it's been the effect. One citizen was prohibited from going bike riding in Cuba. My heart bleeds for her. The poor thing didn't realize there have been over 2 million Cubans exiled in 50 years, tens of thousands estimated to have died at sea trying to escape anything resembling the bike path she wanted to ride, thousands executed with hardly a trial, hundreds in prison for standing up for the same rights the US Bill of Rights happens to protect (let alone the Cuban Constitution trampled upon by back to back tyrants, the first of which was supported by the US while the second, these congressmen wish could be). Surely Joan the bikerider did not watch yesterday as the suddenly generous tyranny (undoubtedly driven by the pending vote by the US Congress) allowed an unprecedented 1 minute of free speech to each of 10 protesters wanting to speak to the tourist crowd surrounded by State Security. Yes, 1 whole minute of the same free speech you have and for the first time in their lifetimes, but not on Cuba's streets. Surely she is not aware that concurrent to this event, 5 other Cuban dissidents were (and remain) under siege in their own house by State Security; or that they aren't permitted to obtain nutrients to continue their liquid fast, begun in February to reclaim their crushed human rights. But perhaps she is aware and the congressmen are too.

How can someone be so perversely selfish to argue that the one being punished is the American who is not allowed to ride her bike in this country which, with US cooperation, has been under the siege of one tyrant since 1952, and without it of another since 1959? What does she and the Congressmen want? That the US begin cooperating with the Castro tyranny just as it did with Batista? It sure didn't work then. Why should it work now?

The cynical charade staged by these US Congressmen didn't end here; it only got worst.

Next we heard about the American punished for traveling to Cuba to distribute bibles. This Joan may remind you of those that claimed that God perhaps willed the Iraq invasion to get rid of those WMDs that were never found. Why didn't she send bibles by international mail like others? Why didn't she try donating them to a US Christian church so they could distribute it through their Cuban affiliate? Did she finally send them (good!) or did she scream? No Fidel, suit yourselves, then no bibles!

Then the pro-Cuba-travel-rights warriors lament over the picture of a Cuban American Iraq veteran who was prohibited from visiting his dying father. Wait. Wasn't it agreed upon last week that Cuban Americans wouldn't be penalized for traveling to Cuba? In addition, couldn't he, since he also holds Cuban citizenship, have gone through Mexico or any other country?

They then continue with the heart breaking story of still another Cuban American, a nostalgic father who wants his US son to visit his country of birth. Surely he has that right but why did he leave? Have any of the reasons changed? In any case,why shouldn't his son be able to go now given the new budget legislation passed last week?

No, no pictures, audio or video of Antúnez and 4 dissidents whose home is under siege right now or of political prisoners and protesters were shown. That's enemy propaganda.

Instead they decided to insult the intelligence of US citizens, including Cuban Americans by arguing that US tourists are the ones who are going to bring significant democratic change to Cuba and quickly. What exactly are these tourists going to do? Have a talk with Fidel with a picture of the Statue of Liberty hanging from their necks? Or perhaps all of those bike rides will do it one way or another? Yes, the pain will soon be over for those Cuban protesters and political prisoners. Just wait until the American tourists arrive with their cameras asking for autographs. Too bad the 2 million or so Canadian, Spaniards, European and Latin American tourists didn't think of that first.

The litany could not end without begging for our sympathy for those humanitarian exchange groups. Like the ones in Berkeley perhaps? I recall once attempting to support a free speech protest in Berkeley only to be virtually kicked out by one activist lecturing me that it was 'for progressives only' and another much older one assuring me that free speech was meant only for Marxists. Now, what is it they want to go to Cuba to exchange?

Finally they treated us to their best blow: Castro doesn't want the US to lift the embargo. Nope. The truth of the matter is he doesn't want Americans travelling to Cuba and providing him with $3-10 billion dollars annually. So let's use reverse psychology. Let's call his bluff. Let's give him those billions of dollars and the tourists too. Americans: will we teach him a lesson he'll never forget.
..................................................................................

Send this post to your congressman. Standing up for the human rights of Cubans is standing for the rights of all. Don't buy the double standard they are peddling. Do unto others as you would want them to do onto you.

Here's the video. Enjoy if you can.

Tomorrow I'll try to respond to the China objection and perhaps more. Please stay tuned.