UPDATED: Bioethics À la Carte for the Castro Regime?

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?

Castro Regime and Dissident Agree on 'Right' to Suicide

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?

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?

Another Suicidal Hunger Striker in Cuba

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

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.

Google vs. Invisible Cuba

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?

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

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

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