The Commentary by Amorós

WE ARE ALL COLUMBUS! LONG LIVE COLUMBUS! CELEBRATE DISCOVERY!

2011-10-10T20:56:00.001-04:00

I will not be joining the Neo-Stalinist, Orwellian, “politically correct” rewriting of history for political manipulation of “Columbus Day”. Instead, I will celebrate the human spirit of discovery.

In North Anglo-Saxon America, with its emphasis on the individual, what is celebrated is the individual achievement of a man. From a cultural point of view that’s understandable. In Latin America what is observed or celebrated is “El día de la raza”; literally “the day of the race”. It celebrates the multi-ethnic, multi-racial composition of the Americas, contrary to the almost racist connotation that some “radical” sectors now imply.

Since no human individual is perfect—much less any historical figure—what should never be overlooked in Columbus is our common human patrimony. We commemorate the human spirit of exploration, of discovery, of empirical research, of courage, of going against the current against superstition and obscurantism.

When in 1992 I was invited to be in a panel on the 500th anniversary of the Discovery of the Americas by Europe, sponsored by The National Endowment for the Humanities, I made some discoveries of my own.

As a Hispanic representative I discovered I was supposed to be there as the token victim of Columbus. I discovered that the purpose of the conference was not to develop a fresh and new historical consideration, a “corrective balance”, but an effort to reinvent history for a political purpose. I also discovered that some who claim to help us in fact want to keep us down.

Since then the anti-Columbus Day “correction” hides a new Black Legend. We are no longer talking about the spirit of discovery, courage and ingenuity, the gallantry of the Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians and Europeans in general.

We are not telling our children that they too share in the founding of this country and that before Jamestown there was San Juan; that before Plymouth Rock there was St. Augustin; that before Denver and Las Vegas there was San Francisco and Los Angeles; that before Lewis and Clarke there was Coronado. Nor are we telling them that all of these have some things in common. They were all founded on sacrifice, hard work, sweat and tears, and yes, ambition and greed, but also self-denial.

No, we are now telling our children that before their Spanish ancestors there was paradise, after the arrival of their ancestors only genocide, disease and pillage. Euphemisms have been developed in lieu of the dreaded word “discovery”. “The encounter”, “the exchange”, “the clash” are phrases that are supposed to make us feel better and lift the indigenous from the ignominy of having been discovered.

Yes, in the process of indeed discovering something that was truly unknown to them, there were abuses committed by Europeans. But contrary to the paradisiacal view that politically correct “corrections” want to rewrite, Spaniards were actually shocked and thought they had arrived at the very gates of hell after witnessing indigenous practices of human sacrifice.

The question for educators is this: how do you intend to lift the self-image and self-understanding of a generation of Hispanic students when you are telling them that at least half of their heritage is nothing but a heritage of brutes and genocidal maniacs? What this history should teach us all is not just how evil some historical figures were, but that we all have the potential to be just like them; or to be the opposite.

Spanish conquest was distinct from all others in that from the beginning it developed an ethical process of self-examination. Even in their historically limited world-view the “Indian” was lower in the order of things and yet they had a place in the human order and incorporation. Other conquests simply set out to remove them and in many cases simply to exterminate them. For the Spanish, as a whole, there was no “a good Indian is a dead Indian”.

As a result of that history, and because soldiers and “conquistadores” were not the only ones who came with and after Columbus, Spain emerged as a world pioneer in the philosophy and jurisprudence of human rights. Missionaries, appreciative of the level of culture they found were responsible for the preservation of invaluable indigenous cultural artifacts, documents and codices of the time. It was those same missionaries who came to their defense. It was they and the Spanish crown, not a commission of 20th Century historians who were responsible for the eventual arrest and removal of Columbus.

Ironically, Fr. Bartolomé de las Casas, who in his effort to defend the Indians also became one of the greatest contributors to the Black Legend, in the end protested against the New World being called America, in honor of a traveler named Amerigo Vespucci. He thought that in all due credit it should have been named Colombia.

So, without overlooking Columbus’ shortcomings I will celebrate his courage and vision. I will celebrate the fusion of cultures that is the Caribbean. I will celebrate the courageous resistance of our indigenous people and the resilience of Africans.

I will celebrate the spirit of Fr. Bartolomé de las Casas for standing against Columbus and defending the Indians and the spirit of Fr. Francisco Victoria who became the acknowledged “father of international law and human rights” in the process. And I will celebrate the positive human qualities of Columbus and the spirit of discovery of his era for as Victor Hugo said, “The glory of Columbus is not so much in having arrived, but in having lifted anchors.”

THE (TRAGIC) DISGRACE OF 9/11

2011-09-11T18:26:00.002-04:00

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” -Thomas Jefferson

The event of 9/11 was an American disgrace not a tragedy.

“Tragedy” has become such a misused and misapplied word that is has lost its real meaning, depriving it of its seriousness and human dignity. It has become a term to cover every form of loss of human life regardless of the circumstances, from accidental drowning to car accidents.

The classics say otherwise. Oedipus, the main character in classic Greek tragedy, is visited by a fate of misfortune and misery not because of unexpected, unconnected circumstances out of his control in life, but by his own doings. Oedipus is not altogether an innocent victim of fate.

In the classical sense tragedy occurs when a character brings upon himself a turn of fortune (usually from good to bad). We observe how a character makes mistakes upon mistakes trying to fix a dealt bad hand and is not able to see the complex compilation of those mistakes in his future. Pride plays a central role in tragedy, as it does not allow the character the moral judgment necessary to see his predicament.

The audience fears and at the same time feels pity for the character, and even cheers for him and hopes that in the end he can break from the logical but ominous path he have set for himself. We know our character is not a bad person, just simply blind. In the end, we are able to release the tension the play creates in us because a tragedy bring us healing, but only if one is able to reconcile the facts that led to the tragic ending and the final fate of the character.

Even though we feel pity for the character, in the end we accept that his fate was all his own. The character is not innocent. That is tragedy.

When I hear of 9/11 referred to as “tragedy”, I have to ask, what was the guilt of its victims? Yes, we heard some, like former professor Ward Churchill (people working at the WTC were “little Eichmanns”) and even a linguist like Noam Chomsky blame American policies for 9/11. And even a college textbook has this conclusion, “The root cause [of world violence] is not terrorist activity. It is the relationship between the United States and the Islamic world. Until this central cancerous problem is treated, Americans will never be free from fear.” We have also heard “They hate us for our freedom.”

None of the statements above can be proven as true, but they serve the tragic version of 9/11. We deserved it therefore the victims of 9/11 deserved it too. But does that make it a tragedy, even if true?

Contrast the term “disgrace”. It means “shame”, “dishonor”, “humiliation” it’s the antonym of canonization, exaltation. And that is what 9/11 is, a disgrace. On 9/11/01 the United States of America was disgraced, not as result of anything its victims did, knowingly or not, but by politics, cheap politics.

On 9/11 politicians that did practically nothing after the first attack in 1993, and after a formal declaration of war by al-Qaeda disgraced the victims, and the country. The same politicians who tell us we are safer today because a 90 year old woman has to leave her wheelchair to be patted down like a criminal, or a 3 year old child has the fingers of a government employee run through his intimate clothing.

Politicians and their spouses, working for airline industry lobbies that successfully lobbied legislators for lower security standards at airports disgraced us. The same politicians that still allow for uncontrolled open borders knowing that groups like Hezbollah operate in Mexico and Venezuela.

You see, nearly 3,000 human beings were killed on 9/11 through no fault or guilt of their own. Was 9/11 a tragedy? It never was. When a "9/11" happens again who knows, perhaps, next time it will.

A climate change I can believe in (From Cafe Magazine March 12, 2010)

2011-09-08T21:25:00.000-04:00

By now the reasonable, the rational, should know that there are serious problems with the whole “climate change” agenda.
We have recently seen how leading scientists and institutions who have been promoting the “climate change” agenda have been caught and have admitted to fudging data in order to establish “scientific” evidence of global warming. If one thing has change it is the climate of the debate itself.

Resignations from East Anglia University, the leading institution in the “climate change” debacle, to resignations at the United Nations point to serious problems. The worst is how science has been used for political purposes. We were first told we faced a problem of “global warming” but when dissident voices within the scientific community began not only to question but to expose serious problems with the conclusions the terms then changed. It became no longer politically feasible to keep calling the problem “global warming”. “Climate change” became the new call to arms.

“Climate change” is such a general concept that it really means nothing to those who deal with the weather on a professional basis. Yet to the general public it is a concept so vague that it can include anything that the “global warming” prophets want it associated with. But as any airline pilot will tell you there is “climate change” every day, indeed, every hour, and every minute.

For many people “global warming” has become a religion. But what we need is reliable, non-politically driven scientific research to determine first of all if there is global warming occurring, and then to find out what the real cause or causes may be. The division is really not between those who think that humans may have an impact on the environment and those who do not, but whether current claims that current global warming is caused by humans.

There is a narrative attached to the whole debate that seems to go beyond the mere climatological inquiry and it has political undertones. The bottom line is that the connection is being made or attempted to be made between global warming and human progress, especially as led by capitalist, free-market societies. The conclusion, as seen by some of the solutions being proposed, seems to be ahead of the scientific determination of the problem: curtail life in developed nations, make them pay for global warming, excuse developing nations.

What became more telling about the whole debacle and scandal of “climate change” was the actors who most pushed for adoption of a Copenhagen accord. At that gathering the international leader who received the longest standing ovation was Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. His anti-U.S., anti-capitalism rant was applauded extensively. A few weeks later Osama bin Laden joined the cause.

We need to ask--regardless of any scientific merits—what is really driving those who have found in “climate change” a new political home? A leading global warming scientist Dr. Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in Britain, just recently stepped down as director. It was discovered they were manipulating data to strengthen the argument for man-made global warming. That data was been used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to demand of governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. It was also used to produce the “graph”s showsing temperatures relatively stable for centuries as counterpart to dramatic rise in recent decades. Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official, has also resigned.

I do not need the global warming religion to be a concerned and responsible citizen toward the environment. But I do want to believe that science should remain above political agendas.

President Obama insists that we should believe in “climate change”. President Obama, I want to believe, please help my unbelief.

Rethinking Obama (reposted here from Cafe Magazine October 26, 2009)

2011-09-01T13:32:00.001-04:00

I'm nearing the conclusion, as much "benefit of the doubt" I have tried to give President Obama, that we are not dealing with any of all those reasons to explain Obama one can find in conspiracy theories of the left or the right. I'm beginning to think it is all more banal and simple than all that.

I think we have in Obama the perfect and final product of the 1960's. If some kind of liberal/left Dr. Frankenstein had decided to create the perfect president for the future he would have produced Obama.

First, he would have given him Obama's psychological profile (see WOUNDED EGOS ON THE WORLD STAGE ), then he would have added all the 60's elements starting with heavy doses of pop-psychology, "I'm Okay, You're Okay" hypersensitivity, then a good quantity of "Dr. Spock's" prescription for an undeserved and aggrandized sense of self-importance and self-esteem.

He would then deconstruct any and all inherited positive views of America and reprogram his brain to see America as the reason for all the world's misery and corruption. By way of a "Clockwork Orange" type of conditioning he would proceed to ingrain in him an automatic and guttural distaste for anything military. He would fill him with a populist center-left rhetoric capable of fooling even the most educated.

And finally, imprint in him the notion that the rest of the world is really a multicultural mélange of the United Colors of Benetton waiting for the luminescence of a world Messiah as they sing "We are the world" and not for a way to advance their own interests.

In the meantime, we will either laugh or cry as we watch "the creature" running around like the emperor who has no clothes; while decisions that need to be taken are not, but appear to be.

Bush was smart. And that's the difference I make between smart and intelligent. They are not mutually exclusive but sometimes you could be only one. I think Bush was both. But Bush was not an "intellectual". Liberals and academicians especially, confuse intelligence with "intellectualism". That is why Obama has been and will continue to sit around surrounded with "pointy heads", pondering, contemplating what needs to be done.

Smart has to do more with "street smarts", business acumen, etc. A smart and intelligent person knows what needs to be done and does it. The "intellectual" is mostly abstract and see things in the abstract, he is afraid of being wrong so he will ponder for ever, without taking sides or a decision. The smart and intelligent one goes to Harvard for an MBA (Bush); the "intellectual" goes to Harvard and academia, community organizing (Obama).

When Mao said "Power is born from the barrel of a gun", it made sense. The problem is that liberals confuse "Power" with "Authority". A rapist with a gun has "power" over its victim but no authority. Today's Liberals do not believe in essential democratic values. They have de-constructed everything down to "power". Our Founding Fathers believed in power but that power resides in authority, that is "authorship", and that the authors of that power are “the people”, not the government as a separate, autonomous entity. Communists, liberals, etc., only believe in power. They reject authority. Authority requires legitimacy. Power requires only force.

Bush understood the logistic problems of having troops mobilized and waiting in the dessert for an attack on Iraq. On the way to the invasion of Iraq liberals did not understand those realities. Obama doesn't know these things either. He doesn't understand what it takes to mobilize an army and have it at peak preparation. He must think that it is just like getting on Air Force One to go to Europe to lobby for the Olympics and be back in two days.

Bush made a strategy based decision. At the height of the war against al-Qaeda his put-together coalition attacked, squashed and left Afghanistan, and then picked a better fighting ground that favored American doctrine of “re-shaping the Middle East” by moving to Iraq. Both actions were approved by the Democrats.

But let’s not forget that to win the election the Democrats had to diminish the public's view of the security brought us by Bush's bold action. Hence the Democrats mantras: "Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan” and the ever popular, "Iraq is a war of choice" and “Afghanistan is a war of necessity.”

Well, now they are forced to focus on Afghanistan. Now winning depends on success in a place where nobody has ever won...long term, yet. Now we have to fight in a place that is a defensive force multiplier and probably do things that this group will not have the stomach for, bringing the full force of military occupation into play.

So yes, Iraq was a war of choice. What war isn’t? Successful commanders always force the fight on ground that favors them. Iraq was most favorable to establish a buffer zone between Iran and other interested parties against U.S. interest in the region.

President elect Obama and his team were briefed in full detail on the review and recommendations for Afghanistan in the fall of 2008. They accepted the evaluation and took it as their own. In March, President Obama announced the implementation of a strategy that was based on that review. He appointed Gen. McChrystal. Now “the war of necessity” is being treated as a “war of choice” due to the basic stability of Iraq, “the war of choice”.

A Campaign '08 Personal Farewell Letter to Friends

2011-08-10T09:58:00.002-04:00

October 15, 2008.

Dear friends, relatives and voluntary and involuntary “emailers”:
When I was a “USAF-single-and-with-money-in-my-pockets-to-spare-younger-man”, I wanted to change my car for a better looking one. I was faced with the choice between a brand new sports car or a used one in great shape. Of course, the first was more expensive and better looking, but the skillful salesman said new cars came with a "free 27'' TV" offer!

So, who couldn't pass that up? Who? a "USAF-single-and-with-money-in-my-pockets-to-spare-younger-man", that’s who. There was a catch. The TV wouldn't be delivered for about 30 days after buying the car. I fell for it. The TV never came. To make a long story short, two months later I ended trading back for the used car.

I have enjoyed the banter and emails during this campaign. By now those of you who are going to vote for one candidate or the other, no matter what, will not be persuaded one way or the other by the tit-for-tat and mud slinging which is what remains of the campaign until that day when the real poll will take place. So, I will not be responding to any emails of that nature. Given the attempts by Russia to reassert itself again in our hemisphere I've got bigger fish to fry; plus I’m working on the translation of a book on a deadline (By the way, don't sweat too much the Russians; from a military standpoint they are pretty much obsolete. Their real threat is in the triumvirate between them, Venezuela and Iran together with its surrogates Hezbollah in Latin America. Given our insane illegal immigration problem that is where a real threat is today).

Regarding Sen. Obama this is the last thing I have to say. But first see this for yourself, then come and read the rest. Don't cheat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008
Ok, are you back?

This is where Obama confirms the Marxist influence of his intellectual formation. Even though he tries to explain away his "gaffe" (his contemptuous slight on the American working class for "bitterly clinging to their religion and guns" during a private fundraising dinner among San Francisco elite), he confirms a materialist understanding of religion. Basically, he restates what he originally said, about religion not as a foundational human experience but a crutch. And the audience falls for it, including the ignorant interviewers!

Regardless whether or not he is a Marxist, a Muslim or any other charges, I could care less. But Marxism and religion are things I do know both from an intellectual point of view and from practical experience. And it is Obama's intellectual formation which brings out questions. His contemptuous slight on the American working class for "bitterly clinging to their religion and guns" is worth examining by itself. It is a statement worthy of the best Marxists from Lenin to the present. But even more worthy and revealing is the way in which Sen. Obama tried to explain away his comment.

It is clear that for Sen. Obama, as for Marx, religion is the opium of the people. His understanding of religion is materialist (especially pay attention after 2:10 in the meter). In other words, religion is a created structure out of the material conditions of the economic forces, an escape, and a palliative. Notice the end, he says "is what they have left". In other words, religion is not an integral part of the human soul, an agent in history, but a social creation resulting from the material conditions of history. Religion is just "a way to explain their frustrations."

What one clearly sees in his responses, outside the teleprompter, is a mélange of voices which are not entirely his but a product of his formation. I don't think he is an original thinker but a storage of information, doctrine. He shows the syndrome that many of his American university trained contemporaries demonstrate; the lack of an ability to give straight answers for fear of saying something politically incorrect, or of appearing as a modern essentialist.

In his explanation of his comments, in the end, he manages to do what his training has taught him to do; in other words, his reinstates his true beliefs while appearing to be "nuanced" and deep thinking.
Sen. Obama may not be a militant, closet or even conscious Marxist, but that in his intellectual formation there is Marxism there is no doubt about it (see his own autobiography). For Obama religion is the opium of the people. This goes well with the Black Liberation Theology of his Church, which is according to its own statement, not “Christo-centric” but “Afro-centric”.

I do not think that Sen. Obama is the devil incarnate, a closet Muslim, a Manchurian candidate, etc., although objectively, if I had to choose to hire him for my research business or were he to apply for a job at the FBI he wouldn't pass a background check or security clearance. There are two many holes in his story, too many liable personal associations, too many endorsements from America's enemies and two many sealed and unreleased necessary documentation in his trajectory.

His first and most important executive decision was to pick Sen. Biden for VP, supposedly to make up for Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience. But this is Biden’s solution to Iraq: divide the country into three small countries! And Biden has said (9/15/08) that our military is "stretched thin on two wars, one of necessity, one of choice". Any one who can’t see how these two fronts are related to one war knows nothing of foreign policy and geopolitics, or is a demagogue.

This alone is reason enough for me to question my vote for Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama and the Democrats have made a campaign claiming the US presence in Iraq is "illegal," (but one they voted for) yet in his one and only trip to Iraq Obama suddenly remembered that Americans troops are in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. He has privately advised the Iraqi government that Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate. In the meantime, the geo-politically ignorant American public keeps buying lines and slogans, like we have an "occupation" in Iraq.

Obama says one thing while campaigning at home, but he already knows the truth about Iraq. Although maybe not with the same number of troops, we are there to stay. Obama knows it. The left wing extremists that won him the primaries know it and are fit to be tied.

Remember the last years of Bush ’41, the president that “got along” with Congress? The economy fell in a slump. Carvell’s devised campaign for Clinton was “It’s the economy, stupid”. Bush’s ’41 campaign responded that the economy eventually would straighten itself up. Within the first two years of the Clinton administration the economy did just that. But the rest of the time we saw terrorism against the US abroad and at home like never before. In fact, during that time 9/11 was in the works, right here at home. It was the Clinton administration which developed and advocated for a policy of regime change in Iraq, defended by all major Democrats and the media. Inclusively, the media covered the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam during all that period, yet once Bush ’43 came to power all that disappeared from the media.

By the way, I was not in favor of going to Iraq (there is public record of that, radio and press). What many of you failed to distinguished was that my criticism was directed to the hypocritical, scandalous and at times even treasonous manner in which those who approved of the policy (Durbin, Kerry, Pelosi, Rangel, Kennedy, Reid) later placed their party political ambitions above the national interest. And of that there is plenty of record too. Credit must be given to Sen. Hillary Clinton who even when waffling, at least stood by her decision and husband’s foreign policy.

In my op/ed in La Voz, “Obama Making Tracks” (Dec. ’07, also in blog, and in La Vanguardia, Spain), I gave Sen. Obama the benefit of the doubt, and criticized the Clinton and the old black civil rights establishment for the manner they attacked him. I even sent recommendations to his campaign. I said then, “As long as Obama continues to hang tight to the contradictions [his personal and the party’s contradictions] he won’t win. At least at this moment he doesn’t seem able to overcome those barriers. But he has the opportunity to at least, return the Democratic Party, or a good portion of it, back to its senses. To loosen the party from the grip of the unhinged MoveOn.org, Acorn, and other similar beings alienated from reality, could be one good contribution that his presence in this race may achieve. Ironically, it seems that Obama would have better chances running as a moderate Republican than as a MoveOn.org Democrat.” Apparently he chose to let those teenagers run his campaign.

President Bill Clinton won by appearing as a centrist. Ironically, while Sen. Obama chose to move to the left, it is McCain now who has moved the Democrat vote to the center.

I'm sure that Sen. Obama is a very decent man. He has a lot to contribute to this country once he matures and finds a voice of his own. He is new, fresh and, in the words of his own running mate, "clean" although “not ready to be president” ("The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.", Sen. Biden regarding Sen. Obama during the primaries).

There are many issues on which both candidates and all of us can find common ground for the good of the country. Let’s hope we vote around those issues, not on whether a candidate can or can’t send an email (this was a charge against McCain).

I will not respond to individual emails regarding the campaign. I will only be posting replies through my blog (next one this weekend).

So, vote for whomever you must vote. But if you are going to vote for one candidate because of promises about Iraq, make sure you they are not just offering you a free TV. Iraq is not even an issue anymore.
Farewell.

José A. Amorós

Next page: recommended readings and links"

A great succinct explanation of the mortgage "Wall Street" crisis. Ooops, it was removed from Youtube! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

Well, try this one (you might want to stop and read the sources)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaABV1CWXug&feature=related

Saturday Night Live version of the mortgage crisis. There is no better way to explain this crisis. The Sandler’s are real people and major contributors to the Obama campaign. This video was re-edited by NBC because under their picture ran the original caption “People who should be shot”. Soros is a major donor to Obama.
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/c-span-bailout/727521/

Try these, especially the last one where a Congressman is upset that the regulator even dares to bring up the warning! Franklyn Raines is doing a great job according to Maxine Waters. Remember these Congress members depend on the goodies of the CRA, both political and financial, for their re-elections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

The Community Reinvestment Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

1999 NY Times Article Revealed True Cause of Current Fannie Mae Crises
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

O's Chicago Connections, The Community Reinvestment Act, ACORN
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm

'OBAMA THE GREAT' GRATING ON BUBBA http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/news/politics/obama_the_great_grating_on_bubba_131210.htm

Joe Biden against Joe Biden and Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDBc8DDpuWo&feature=related

The Barack Obama campaign is getting help from local prosecutors, both Democrats, to "clarify" TV ads the campaign believes are misleading. Censure of freedom of speech.
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

What happened to Obama and the Democratic Party?

2010-11-02T11:25:00.002-04:00

In reality there has never been a socialist party, nor of the “working class” of any import in the United Status. The closest thing to a social-democrat party has been the Democratic Party. For a long time and generations this party has represented a political shelter for the working classes, the middle class and immigrants. Among those immigrants finding refuge were those from Catholic countries, whom by their condition as immigrants were also poor, working class, and eventually middle class. But what happened to the party which produced a Catholic president, a son of Irish immigrants?

As a promoter of social mobility the Democratic Party is now a victim of its own success. As minority populations, immigrants, workers and their progeny ascended socially through civil rights legislation, affirmative action in employment and education, the causes—its reason for being—of the Democratic Party began to change. Blacks and whites began to share a “level plain field” in social competition. The interests of these groups began to diversify at par with their social ascendance. Other causes were added; environmentalism, gay rights, feminism.

Today those causes transcend the exclusivity of a single party. For the Democratic Party only slogans and the institutional memory of those struggles remain. Today, dressed in the language of the left its political discourse cannot surpass a level of infantilism and superficiality—a running back and forth between half-baked conspiracies theories.

The same social mobility which now allows the descendants of immigrants to choose between public or private education for their children is the same mobility which now allows, without ideological scruples, mobility between parties and the variable political menu.

Then, what is happening to Obama and the Democratic Party?

First of all, they reduced Obama’s attraction to a symbolism of change, based on some racial social injustice still to be redeemed. But, by virtue and success of his own nomination, racism is no longer a crucial issue. By choosing a veteran like Biden, a representative of the same old political system that Obama has campaigned to change, Obama has subliminally cancelled his change theme.

As we have mentioned previously in these pages, Obama does represent change. But he is not the only one. Governor Palin represents change also, and at least a subliminal change over Biden, a change in the Republican Party and change in the manner in which the Democratic Party treated its first woman candidate to the presidency. The word “change” became a slogan in Obama’s campaign, but it became a practical reality in McCain’s.

For a large part of the electorate, including the so-called “Reagan Democrats (that demography of minorities, immigrants, workers, etc.), the Democratic Party is today ruled by a condescending “Harvard” and media, Manhattan and Washington establishment elite, which looks down on people outside their circles as, in Obama’s own words, “bitter people clinging to their guns and religion”. It’s a ruling class of a party where diversity of appearances, of sex, race and ethnicity exists, but where homogeneity of thought rules.

For a large part of the electorate, today the Republican Party is more democratic in its diversity of opinions, as one can judge by the very discrepancies between Palin and McCain on issues of global warming, abortion and others. In the Democratic Party those issues are now dogmas, which in Al Gore’s own words, “are not open to discussion.”

Other things have changed. With the settlement and reduction of the feminist agenda to one of abortion rights and the equality of positions with men it also has been established in practice that women, at least in all social aspects, can do everything. That a woman can find herself on the race for president and even achieve that goal has also been established.

But a new generation of young women, intellectually raised under gender studies programs has had to live not in the theories about the patriarchy and deconstructionism but between practical and very human realities and existential options between relationships, family and work.

That generation has been called to live between the rhetorical feminism of NOW and the practical feminism of Palin; while the first feminists based their lives on careers, militancy and protests the latter based their careers on work and study, relationships and the rearing of children. While the first criticized “the system” they joined it marrying powerful men, from lawyers and politicians to a president of the nation; the second feminists, married “Joe Six-pack”, stay-home dads and working men in general. While the first feminists preached placing career before children and men, the later feminists obtained careers, children and husbands.

From her positions as PTA member, mayor and governor Palin has demonstrated that women can even have a baby with Down syndrome without having to abort him in exchange for a professional career. In reality, the first feminists now appear as not wanting for women to have it all. A woman who can achieve it all without ideological dependence, or centralized government solutions is a threat to feminists who have made public careers on the victimization of women and as mediators of the definition of what is a real feminist.

Within the first feminism, especially in the worlds of academia and politics, men learned to feminize themselves, condescending here, not daring to say anything there. The men of the second feminism learned, by necessity, to deal with and understand strong women who didn’t stop from being women at home or at work.

The same manner in which Obama was protected against any attack which otherwise would have been considered racist, Hillary should have been protected against any attack which otherwise would have been considered sexist. However, she was not protected. But while Hillary had to recourse to tears to obtain sympathy and votes, Palin had only to let the pro Obama press showed their campaign against her.

Palin was not protected because of her gender; on the contrary, she was attacked for being a woman and for not being a woman of the media mold of the first feminists. She is not their ideal woman. But their ideal woman, Hillary, was the one that the Democratic Party set aside for Obama.

The bitter fight between Hillary and Obama exposed for all to see the great division and transformation within the Democratic Party. Now there is panic and remorse among many who supported Obama, and they now think that the invincible ticket would have been Clinton-Obama. This would have accomplished two historical goals: the first woman president and the first African American Vice President. Putting McCain to the side, the real fight would have been between Hillary and Palin. Obama could have had increased his international profile and experience in foreign policy as Vice President, and at the end of four or eight years still be young enough to run for president.

Instead, while Palin’s husband appears as a male who is sure of himself, supporting his wife, Obama appears as an insecure man, condescending and miniscule. Michelle Obama making last minute appeals “My husband can’t do it alone” only reinforces those perceptions. Mr. Palin, on the other hand, appears as a strong man who knows his wife can defend herself. Obama appears as a metrosexual “dude”, politically correct, apologetic, and afraid to offend, except to compare dissenting Americans as “enemies” or an independent woman to a pig, as he did with Palin.

This is why, Obama has lost ground and the Democratic Party has shot itself in the foot. While supposedly Obama is running against the Republican Party in reality he is still running against Palin.

The Double-Standard Summit Amigos?

2010-05-22T11:25:00.001-04:00

The President of the United States of America, Felipe Calderón and the President of the United States of México Barack H. Obama met recently at the White House and later the President of the United States, Felipe Calderón addressed the U.S. Congress. What? Well, it was hard to tell who the president of what country was.
President Calderón goes to the U.S. Congress and criticizes the rights of the federated State of Arizona to defend its borders and enforce federal law which is not being enforced, and he receives a standing ovation. I guess, due to traditional reciprocity laws and traditions in international law, President Obama will soon address the Mexican congress and criticize México for the way it treats its illegal immigrants.

While there the President of the United States of México Barack H. Obama. Can reiterate, “The new law in Arizona, is a misdirected effort — a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system, and which has raised concerns in both our countries. I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We’re examining any implications, especially for civil rights. Because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person — be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico — should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.”

And he could also lecture the Mexican congress about México’s current immigration laws which among other things says,

“Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)”

“Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)”

“Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)”

I’m sure that no Latin American government will protest this lecturing from the “yanqui”, especially about "the equilibrium of the national demographics" racial purity aspects of Mexican law.

So, you see? They have become interchangeable, especially since Presidente Obama said during the occasion, “A nation is not defined by its borders” which we all know México already puts into practice.
Just look at what the President of the United States Felipe Calderón had to say about Mexican immigration laws (with Wolf Blitzer. CNN 5/19/10):
Blitzer: "So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, can they just walk in?"

Calderón: No! They need to fulfill, uh, a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedence.

Blitzer: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?

Calderón: Of course! Of course!

Blitzer: If somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico and they wind up in Mexico, they can get a job?

Calderon: No, no, no.

Blitzer: They can work?

Calderon: If somebody do that without permissions, we send -- we send back them.

So, you see? Our laws are not just more lenient, but not even enforced, although they are similar in many respects.

There are many interests, in both parties in the U.S. and in the countries from where illegal immigrants arrive, who benefit from the present state of affairs. In other words, the immoral state of “status quo” is convenient.

The challenges for the presidents of the borderless United States of Mexico-America in this summit were simple.

Mexico has inmigration laws which are a lot more strict than those of the US, and the federal laws of the US on inmigraition are the ones adopted by the state of Arizona because of the failure of the federal government in defending the security of the border states. So, these are the questions on the table for both countries.

For Mexico: if other states of the US join with Arizona how is México going to be able to continue exporting Mexicans to the US so that they continue sending remittances while providing a release valve to alleviate its demographic, economic and unemployment situation, without the Mexican elite having to do anything to reform the most corrupt country of Latin America (with excepcion of Cuba)?

For the U.S: How to continue obtaining cheap labor (almost slaves) for private enterprise, at the same time that the illegal immigrant population receives services free of costs to private enterprise but paid for by the taxpayer while not loosing politically at home?

We have said it before that the state of illegal immigration is immoral for various reasons. Among a few, first for the exploitation and the marketing of human beings as simple utilitarian instruments of production, and secondly for the various degrees of hypocrisy, let’s call them “contradictions”, which involves all.

Summits are usually given a thematic name. What should we name this one? How about “The Double-Standard Summit Amigos”? But to be hopefull and optimistic perhaps, "The Will See What Happens Summit". As the drug war in Mexico and unemployment in the US remains where it is, or increases, the need for serious collaboration between the two countries will be urgent.

In the meantime, none of the countries from where illegal immigrants come are countries that do not enforce respect of their own borders.

American labor needs more respect than that.

IN MEMORIAM SFC MODESTO CARTAGENA

2010-03-03T16:51:00.003-05:00

It is with profound and sincere sadness that I inform you of the death of Sergeant First Class Modesto Cartagena (Ret.) in Guayama, Puerto Rico at the age of 90 on March 2, 2010. During the Korean War he performed feats worthy of the Medal of Honor. But prejudices in those days didn't allow for that. A movement recently started to give this hero his proper recognition but unfortunately if the injustice is corrected it will be too late. He was very proud to be a Borinqueneer. Modesto served with the 65th during World War II (where he earned a Bronze Star) and the Korean War. He became the most decorated Puerto Rican soldier earning 20 awards and medals including a Distinguished Service Cross, a Silver Star, another Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. Following is Sr. Cartagena's sworn testimony, as verified by others:

MODESTO CARTAGENA AFFIDAVIT

I certify that I was a sergeant in a squad of the Third Platoon in Company “C”, 65th Infantry Regiment. On April 19, 1951, Company “C” was assigned the mission of capturing Hill 206 near Yonch’on, Korea. When we arrived at the rice paddies below the hill, the Chinese were directing intense cross fire against us. It reached the point where we were immobilized. My squad and I dragged ourselves to the left flank so we could climb up through the rear of the enemy. There was a depression where the Chinese had three positions that were giving protection to their artillery and machine guns. The enemy continued to fire, but we continued to advance ourselves up the hill.

It was there that one of my men was killed, PFC Antonio Colon Flores. And they wounded 11 others. The soldier who carried the automatic rifle called out to me. He had been wounded by two rounds to his thigh. I dragged myself to him, applied morphine and filled out an evacuation card. During the action my rifle had been broken into two pieces, so I took the wounded soldier’s automatic weapon along with his ammunition and grenades to augment mine. I continued going uphill by myself. The Chinese would hurl their grenades at me and I would catch them in the air and quickly throw them through the air opening in the Chinese trenches. They would take cover and I would advance my position. And that’s how I destroyed a Chinese position that was nearby.

When I reached the top of the hill, I thought I still had 2 or 3 men, but there was no one. I noticed that I had fallen into the enemy’s circle. There were 80 to 100 Chinese in their mortar nests – three mortars, three machine guns and there were five automatic weapons on the left. I continued dragging myself until I reached the first mortar nest, I threw a grenade and it blew up. Then I would spray automatic fire. Then I quickly moved to the second position that had a machine gun and blew it up also. And that’s how I destroyed three positions with machine guns, mortars and five automatic weapons. When the Chinese discovered my position, they threw so many grenades that three landed on me. One landed on my back, another in between my legs and the third on my right side. The last one wounded me. The bone was sticking out from my arm. I lost a lot of blood, but luckily I didn’t faint. I kept fighting wounded for almost 3 hours. Eventually, the Chinese withdrew from the hill with many wounded. I took the hill from them. Later they found 33 dead Chinese in the machine gun and automatic emplacements and they found 15 more dead in the positions I had destroyed on my way up the hill.

I went back downhill and returned to my men. One of our tanks that had fallen into a hole after an ambush was there. I assigned two squads to remove the tank from the hole using shovels and picks. And I assigned two squads to search for the wounded and dead. Then I loaded them on the tank and personally took them to the First Aid Station. There were 17 of us wounded, including me and one dead. But when we arrived there, I was the one in worst shape because I had lost a lot of blood. They sent me to Taibu in a helicopter and then to Japan to the 128th Marines Hospital where I stayed for 62 days.

A bubble gum prize for a bubble gum presidency and a bubble gum generation

2009-10-09T10:58:00.004-04:00

If you were a true “rocker” you hated “bubble gum music”. Like the little bubbles you could make with hot air, there was no substance to it; only a sugary, chewy feeling and a sticky mess on your face. Bubble gum music was not for true believers only for the geeks that usually ended in school government.

We thought that bubble gum mentality wouldn't survive. Now we have seen it just grown up and gone to Congress, the White House and the Nobel Prize.

The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama has caused a collective, world jaw drop. Even at NPR and the BBC jaws dropped in incredulity. But the person whose jaw must be taken to an emergency room to have it surgically reinstalled today is President Jimmy Carter. After being passed over for actually bringing peace between two warring nations, he had to become “Bob the Builder” before he was finally recognized by the Nobel Committee in 2002.

According to the Nobel Prize organization the Peace Prize is to be awarded to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

But the prize has been increasingly awarded for less than actually bringing or promoting real peace. Some of the recent awardees have included forest savers (a lady in Africa), documentary makers (Gore), a free market banking promoter (India) and now a president for making speeches full of platitudes and bubble gum hopes.

The prize has become also a political tool of the world liberal elite to stick their finger in the eye of US domestic politics. At least five of the last nine awards could be said were given to slap half of the American voters in the face. Koffi Annan, Carter, Mohamed ElBaradei, Gore, Obama.

So Obama speaks a “non-unilateral”, “non-preemptive use of force” talk and wants the UN to be the main avenue to solve the world’s problems. These were also given as reasons during the press conference. According to the spokesperson for the Nobel Committee basically the award was given to President Obama for talking nice, or in other words, for not being Bush.

Barack Obama has been awarded the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Can anyone cite one major treaty this president has signed? The point is, you need to talk nice to this “bubble gum”, “I love you, you love me, Barney generation.” Actual accomplishments on war and peace are not necessary.

But the bubble gum generation understands war and peace completely different. Now as we so many words which now mean something else, such as "gay", "extreme" and so on, we must redefine the word "extraordinary". Giving the prize to the president “for extraordinary effort” is like giving good grades to a student just for trying. Will the Noble Peace Price become yet another icon of our continued “dumbing down” of values and sense of excellence?

This Nobel Peace Prize is actually unfair to the president. It really does him no favors. It now ties his hands and builds unrealistic expectations. It is yet another effort to meddle in U.S. politics. Ironically, it also helps reinforce the notion of President Obama as a media phenomenon, more fluff than substance. The Nobel Peace Prize in the hands of President Obama at this time looks more like an MTV Video Award.

Perhaps there is a way out for President Obama. In 1973 the Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded to US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Vietnamese politician Le Duc Tho for negotiating the Vietnam peace accord. Le Doc Tho declined the award saying he was not in a position to accept the Prize, citing the situation in Vietnam as his reason.

Perhaps President Obama could avoid this albatross around his neck by citing the “critical situation” of health care in his nation, or the fact that war is raging in Afghanistan, or even the streets of Chicago, or the fact he has actually done nothing to deserve it yet.

As with health care reform, and ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, this prize based not on real accomplishments but on rhetoric will create an alternative reality that won't match “real reality”.

As with the pressure of having to rush health care reform based on a created crisis for political campaigning, now there will be added pressure to rush for an end to conflicts that require complex solutions more than just talking nice.

But for this generation all that will matter is that at least he gets an “A” for effort. Let us Hope our collective bubble doesn’t blow up and leaves a sticky mess on our face.

SOTOMAYOR AND THE DANGER OF RACIAL POLITICS IDENTITIES

2009-07-16T16:51:00.002-04:00

I have been warning for years about the trap, the dead end street, the danger of identities based on racial politics. Recently, a political party that was supposed to be the example of multiculturalism and racial/ethnic and gender harmony was visibly divided precisely along those lines.

We warned about this as far back as 1988 when we saw the Democratic Party go from being the party of immigrants and the middle and working classes to the party of “politically correct” causes. Such superficial coalitions of interest pressure groups led the Democratic Party to become the party of appearances during the past presidential elections.

From the very beginning of his candidacy, then Sen. Obama’s race, ethnicity, religion and culture were placed under question. “Is Sen. Obama Black enough?”, “Is Sen. Obama ‘the magic Negro’ (LA Times)?” These were questions not posed by “old, balding, white male” Republicans, conservatives or “the vast right-wing conspiracy”. No, they came from Democrats and the racial identity politics in the Democratic Party.

Recently the headlines read, “A happy day for all Hispanics”. Why were all of us supposed to be happy? Because a Hispanic female, “a Latina”, has been nominated by President Obama to the Supreme Court? So happy days are here again!

Yes, let us establish in no uncertain terms that we are proud of the personal accomplishments of Judge Sotomayor, a fellow “Puerto Rican”. Her story and that of her parents is not unlike that of many of us. We can relate.

We are also proud of Judge José Cabranes.

So let’s move to “brass tacks”. Is her personal story alone, so crammed down our throats by the main stream media, qualification enough for a seat at the Supreme Court? Are we “all Hispanics” alike, think alike and therefore supposed to jump and say “how high” when a political party says “jump” over their definition of what constitutes a real “Hispanic”?

I recall two recent Hispanics with similar life stories and accomplishments who did not receive equal support among politically assigned Hispanics. In fact, one of them was being considered as a potential Supreme Court candidate, way before Sotomayor. In fact, he was attacked as unqualified for the post, not because of academic and professional qualifications, but precisely for being “Latino” and an immigrant.

Remember Miguel Estrada? Addressing Democratic Party affiliated organizations, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said he was especially singled out “as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible." “He is Latino” are code words for possibly Catholic, possibly a danger to unquestionable judicial dogmas.

The question around President Obama’s candidacy was whether or not then Sen. Obama could play ball with the old guard of the Civil Rights/welfare politics establishment of the Democratic Party with its history of racial politics.

Now we have a “Latina” twisting in her chair, attempting an existential political balancing act that should have nothing to do with whether or not she is qualified and has the judicial temperament for a place in the highest court in the country.

Now it is out there for all to see. The danger is having our racial or ethnic identities and heritage made equal to party membership or ideological identity. If Sotomayor represents true diversity there is much too celebrate. If it is another reaffirmation that ethnic identity equals an ethnic identity in line with an ideological program or agenda, then I'm not so sure that's the diversity we need.

Sotomayor’ statement, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life" (NY Times May 15), should be at the very least cause for pause. There are racial connotations in it indeed. Is it racist? Does that make her a racist?

Sotomayor’s statements, as troubling as they are in their own standing, do not trouble me as much as why they were made: the racial identity politics imposed on us by a white liberal academic establishment for decades now and its hermeneutics of gender/race.

What Sotomayor represents for the problem of race lies with the issue of Hispanics accepting the narrative that Hispanics are a race, and a victim one at that. They have accepted the definition of “White” as Anglo-Saxon only, and of Hispanic/Latino as other than. In the case of Puerto Rican this is particularly misleading.

If you look at the ruling elite in Puerto Rico you will see what I mean. Overwhelmingly they are all white/Caucasian descendants of white/Caucasian Europeans, Spaniards, French, Italians, Germans and Irish. But the culture, as well as most of the population, is the result of historical “mestizo” forging of African, indigenous and Europeans populations into a national identity. What Puerto Ricans are proud of is not their “race”, but of the fact of how those races have forged a distinct culture. There is no “white” or “black” food, music, or dance in Puerto Rico; there is a Puerto Rican culture. And as unified as they are by a culture Puerto Ricans are equally divided by politics.

There are other statements made by Judge Sotomayor that should be examined to judge her judicial temperament, philosophy and world-view. She should be judged on those statements. But she should not be judged based on a definition of what white liberals determine of what is a real Hispanic or Latina. The same should have taken place when judging Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzalez. They also had compelling personal stories. Yet both were destroyed out of higher public service for not having the correct identity.

During his campaign President Obama, said that the generation of the 60s is burnt out and only offers more of the same, more of the stale and divisive politics. Yet here we are. The political struggle for the Hispanic vote will continue. The measure for political parties aspiring to their respect and consideration will be whether that respect and consideration will be mutual.

Let what is happening in the Sotomayor case stand as a warning about what happens to a minority group when racial/ethnic identity becomes equal to party or ideological identity. And what can happen when solutions to our many common problems are not measured by what their own success can demonstrate but by the identity of who proposes them. Our equal protection and common life under the Constitution should be based on “what” we are as a nation, not on “who” we are as separate identities. For anyone aspiring to the Supreme Court that is the measure.

“Change” and “Hope”

2008-11-05T13:48:00.004-05:00

A 51 per cent of the American electorate has decided to elect as president of their nation an unknown with less than two years of service as senator. A totally romanticized campaign by a superficial press used to seeing even politicians as Hollywood stars and celebrities served him both as shield and shield bearer.

But there it is, no matter what. History. The first Black president or better said, first mixed race president, in a country whose founders were slave owners. The questions which the press never asked during the primaries or the rest of the campaign are still left to be asked and researched next to new ones which will develop soon.

What is clear is that many things have occurred and that more than one change have ocurred already. Apparently many “Reagan Democrats” returned home, the base of the Republican Party was left leaderless, young people who voted for the first time may have elected a president with the same depth and manner as in “American idol”, many whites could not pass on the opportunity to expiate their racial guilt complex, most blacks voted as traditional Democrats but also solely on race, and both parties have been left stunned in awe and perplexity.

¿What happened to the Democrats? Among other things, the final breath of life was finally exhaled from “Clintonism”, and with it the end of Hillary’s dream of becoming president (unless the next four years are a total disaster). “Clintonism” was like an affective disorder attacking the nervous system of the Democratic Party. Nobody inside the party, or in its allied press, dared to go against the Clintons. Obama ended that fear and bit by bit loyal “Clintonistas” started defecting.

“Clintonism”, a replacement for “Kennedyism” in itself replaced by “Carterism”, was a machinery which was left behind when Obama built his campaign not only from within the party but from the outside with the help of the Internet and small donations and also with great help from Wall Street.

What happened to the Republicans? Its populism collapsed. A great conservative sector of the middle class and working class was left without leadership. No Reagan emerged among them. Nobody inspired them to see and understand the need or justification for their political and economic sacrifices when either party, but especially the Republican Party, did not solve the problem of illegal immigration and the flight of jobs to overseas locations. They did not see many differences between their hardships and those of their fellow citizens of the other party.

The populism inspired by Reagan, for good or bad, with its sense of national and world purpose was deflated when Republican legislators and the presidency could not be distinguished apart from the Democrats in matters of spending and the lack of defense of the nation’s borders. With his reputation as a “compromiser” with the Democrats, McCain could not convince many of representing a “change” from Bush and much less inspire them.

But just as many people discovered that one thing was for Cardinal Ratzinger to rule as guardian of a realm of the Church and another thing is to rule as general pastor of the whole flock, Obama and his voters will discover that one thing is the rhetoric of campaigns and another the maneuvering between the many who will soon come to collect on political debts.

Sen. Obama has been elected because of his race and in spite of his race. What all American citizens should hope for is that his performance will be judged, as Rev. Martin Luther King would have recommended, not with the color of his skin in mind but by the content of his character.

Change is definitely awaiting those who elected Sen. Obama. For now, all that remains is the hope that it will be the kind they hope for.

Spanish version
http://elmismodia.blogspot.com/

Why I will abstain

2008-10-23T19:40:00.003-04:00

October 21, 2008

Dear Congressman:

Greetings and best wishes! Included in this letter is my “Voter Identification Card” rendered useless. I have decided to abstain from voting in these elections.

I regret not being able to vote for you. I do have personal and professional reasons which have led me to this decision but Republican Party support of the recent “bail out” regarding the mortgage financial crisis at the expense of the American taxpayer is perhaps the reason that tipped me over but not the only one. This act by Congress, the same Congress responsible for the mess to begin with goes against what America and the Founding Fathers always stood for: free enterprise, republican form of government of the represented, personal responsibility to succeed as well as to fail, and other values betrayed by this decision.

As someone who monitors foreign affairs I am aware of the real enemies this country faces abroad. These are enemies that for the longest time dream of seeing “the last great hope of humanity” collapse under its own weight of over bloated complacency. They dream of the day when they may see the end of our “government of the people, by the people and for the people”. They think that will make their countries prosperous. And for that purpose they have already made great inroads in our society, even with active agents in our midst. Yet, some of our greatest enemies are ourselves and from within the ranks of our citizenry; enemies of the very democratic process, groups and organizations which are, as I write, subverting the electoral process. And where is the Republican Party demanding a halt and investigation of this subversion? Where is the Republican Party demanding an investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the mortgage crisis? That the most technologically advanced country in the world cannot have a secure elections process is a real scandal.

It has been very disappointing to see how the Republican Party has abandoned those of us who have supported the ideals of small government, community involvement, self-reliance, minimum taxation and protection of our borders. I have personally made no small sacrifices defending and promoting those ideals, especially in the Hispanic community, only to be left “hanging drying in the wind” and embarrassed. As a former supporter of the Democrat Party I have seen what happens when a party abandons its principles for just “getting along”. Eventually such party becomes the parceled realm from where demagogues make hay.

Just right after 9/11 I lost my career as an airline pilot due to the collapse in employment and hiring by the airlines. The airlines received also a “bail out” then. Again, we the taxpayers will be paying for years for another decision by Congress. Not the one of the bail out itself alone, but what led to 9/11; the slacking of supervision of the security in airports due to lobbying in favor of the airlines against stronger security measures. These and other bail outs we will be paying for the rest of our lives and into the lives of our children. And yet, no one offered me a “bail out” for the student loans I still have to pay for my aviation and other professional training and education. Not even an offer to retrain into another field.

I regret that my decision will result in denying your candidacy my vote for I do hold you in high esteem as you have always been kind and generous toward me with your time, and personally I know you are one of those which deserves to be called an honest politician.

But for the time being and until things change and, among other things, my vote is protected, I feel that I cannot morally participate in such process that ignores the represented. Nor can I lend support to any political party that does the same.

Best wishes,

José A. Amorós

Russia and why Obama is dangerously naive, no JFK

2008-08-13T12:40:00.006-04:00

Like they used to say in the 60s, "You can always trust a commie to be a commie". Today it is reported that Russia has broken the truce. This is no different from Hitler's fight for the Sudetenland and other inch by inch demands. Next Russia will start putting demands on Ukraine if they get away with Osetia and placing a puppet regime in Georgia. Ukraine is their real goal, the slow recovery of the USSR under another name. And Russia will not tolerate its former satellites becoming part of NATO.

One can suspect that Russia believes that Obama will win the elections and they are testing the waters. Months before the North Koreans invaded the South, American politicians, including Dean Acheson, spoke publicly that the US had "no interests in Asia". Before Saddam invaded Kuwait he was given the wrong impression that the US would look the other way. JFK implied the same attitude toward Laos, Vietnam and Cuba. What politicians and candidates say does matter.

Now compare these statements:

"This pattern of attack appears aimed not at restoring any status quo ante in South Osetia, but rather toppling the democratically elected governor of the republic of Georgia. This would be unacceptable to all the democratic countries of the world and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression." -- John McCain

"There's evidence that Russian forces may soon begin bombing the civilian airport in the capital city. These reports are accurate. These Russian actions would represent a dramatic and brutal escalation of the conflict in Georgia. These actions would be inconsistent with assurances we have received from Russia that its objectives were limited to restoring the status quo in South Osetia that existed before fighting began on August the 6th. These actions have substantially damaged Russia's standing in the world. And these actions jeopardize Russia's relations with the United States and Europe. It's time for Russia to be true to its word and to act to end this crisis." --President Bush

"We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council resolution..It's a clear violation of the sovereignty and internationally recognized borders of Georgia (Duh?). This action is wholly inconsistent with the Olympic ideal." -- Sen. Obama

The Olympics?!!!! Resolutions? Like 18 resolutions and 12 years of the UN demanding that Saddam comply with his responsibilities from 1991?

Obama also said, "The UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members and for peace in the world." Excuse me, but any teenager beauty queen can do better than that! Didn't standing up "for the sovereignty of its members" lead to Gulf War part 1, of which the present involvement in Iraq is part 2, due to 12 years of "talking to Saddam"?

This is how Tim Kaine, Democrat governor of Virginia and certified Obamaniac explains the words of the phenObamanon: "The Senator's goal was to be tough and smart, and so when the action happened on Thursday, he immediately called for a ceasefire, condemned the unwarranted use of force by Russia. It was a bad crisis for the world. It required tough words, but also a smart approach to call on the international community to step in -- and I'm very, very happy that the senator's request for a ceasefire has been complied with." REALLY? Putin stopped because Obama asked him? Well, I have also been saying that Obasms can lead to serious delusions.

We have been saying for a long time that the real, backstage, strategic geopolitical reason we went to Iraq to establish a presence there was for this that we are seeing today: Russia. But how can any president explain that to the geopolitically illiterate, "American Idol" watching, MTV raised, MoveOn.org, Pink Panties for Peace public?

The Europeans are all but mentally and morally castrated, and "politically correct" impotent enough to begin with, not to realize that an attack on Georgia is a threat to Europe, especially with the looming threat from Iran's growing long range missile capabilities. (On a side, but not disconnected, Iran has established great inroads into Latin America through Venezuela. And just recently, Chavez has punished Spain by nationalizing the Banco Santander (a major Spanish bank) and confiscating its assets; while Russia has been selling military hardware to Iran which in turn sells it to Venezuela. It was Russia also which provided Saddam's army with night vision and signal scrambling equipment.)

At some other time of peril these words were also said:

"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

And now.."This action is wholly inconsistent with the Olympic ideal."? Which statements will cause the Russian bear to blink this time?

Excuse me again MTVers, but so far the coming of the Obamessiah doesn't look like the ushering of the age of Aquarius.

If he wants to resemble JFK, Sen. Obama may want to keep this words from JFK himself: “This is a dangerous and uncertain world…No one expects our lives to be easy, not in this decade, not in this century”. It looks like not in this one either.

PUERTO RICO, “WELFARE USA”, YOUR NEW EXTENDED FAMILY

2008-08-01T12:37:00.004-04:00

Puerto Rico is a place where stereotypes of a welfare society or better yet, “social dependency”, are common and can be seen daily in public. It is very common to see a young woman followed by a cortege of children stocked with foodstuffs of little nutritional value at the cash register line in your average supermarket.

It is common to see a public employee working alone in some ditch while three or four “supervisors” or co-workers hang around drinking coffee or talking on their cell phones. It is not uncommon to see in neighborhoods known as “poor”, such as La Perla, new cars and satellite dishes in almost every roof.

Closed government institutions and museums, when tourist guides say they are open, are also common. In those institutions, the sense of service to clients, and even in the best hotels, is a sense of service in reverse. That is, the employee is not at the service of the consumer but the service is at the service of the employee. In other words, the goal is not the satisfaction of the consumer but a means, a bother that needs to be put up with in order to keep the job.

The welfare system completes itself in a cycle of elections, government, partisan unions and economic dependence on the federal system of the United States, or better said dependency on North American taxpayers.

That system makes possible that those who could have more children do not and those that shouldn’t do so at the expense of those that can. Even if you plan your family you end up paying for the rearing of children that are not yours. The responsible citizen ends up with a family known to him and an extended family he doesn’t know and yet supports financially.

This system is a vicious circle without apparent end and logic, except for that of self-preservation which leads to the irrational impression that a third of the employed population works in government, a third are retired from government and the last third lives from the first two. In reality, the portion that works and lives paying taxes to upkeep this system in the island, is growing smaller while employment in the private sector decreases with an increase in the closings and flight of large businesses.

The social fabric suffers when a large part of the population grows under a system of values which holds a notion that they are equally entitled to what others obtain by their own efforts. New generations growing under that system remain straggling in dependence, partly due to cycles of bad nutrition, poor education and self-expectations.

That system provokes a general sense of social insecurity, violent crimes, lack of civism, lack of care for public property and public spaces, trash everywhere, brain drain and flight of talents, employment and government inefficiency based on jobs distributed according to politics and not merit, lassitude and indolence.

Recently, while the national historical archives were closed for lack of maintenance in the air conditioning system, the greatest debate on the radio waves was the “debacle” of not having won “Miss Puerto Rico”. Notable exceptions to the carelessness of the cultural patrimony by the government are those efforts by private citizens such as The Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico, and the historical reenactment group the Fixed Regiment of Puerto Rico.

What is the future? In recent visits to Puerto Rico candidates Clinton and Obama offered Puerto Ricans more entitlements and the local politicians, who have become the dominant class administering that system, rejoice. What about the government? In bankruptcy.

The people of Puerto Rico are strong, hardworking, resistant, diverse, its graduates and professionals and their talents are highly valued. Its lineage has synthesized the best of three races and four cultures. But whoever wants to see what a welfare state does to a people must study “Puerto Rico Welfare USA, and its new extended family.

Spanish version
http://elmismodia.blogspot.com/

It's foreign affairs, dummy!

2008-07-08T17:05:00.004-04:00

For weeks—nonstop—the topic on the evening TV news talk-shows was the mysterious disappearance and tawdry affair of one young Washington, D.C. intern and a Democrat Congressman from California. The evening of September 10, 2001 was no different. The intern was Chandra Levy, member of a Conservative Jewish congregation. The Congressman was Gary Condit. He was a senior member on the House Intelligence Committee. Americans had enough time in their hands to pay attention to that sort of thing. Eight years before they were told “It’s the economy, stupid”. Next day the sexy topic disappeared for good. Unfinished business came to the fore.

On Saturday evening June 24, 1950, Americans were looking toward a regular summer Sunday next day, including President Truman. As later during the 1990s, national policies occupied the minds of the public as the country entered an era of post-WWII prosperity and domesticity. Next day the sense of a United States finally at peace after four years of world conflict disappeared for good also. Unfinished business came to the fore.

September 11, 2001 and the invasion of South Korea brought to the fore to Americans the reality that they live in a larger neighborhood.

For months and years American leaders were sending messages, in verbal and non-verbal clues, that they were not too concerned about America’s role in the world. All through the 1990s the U.S. had experienced terrorist attacks at home and abroad but they were all seen as isolated incidents and not possibly as part of a burgeoning fanatic movement.

Prior to the invasion of South Korea statements by American leaders gave the clear impression to Communist leaders that the U.S. would not intervene in Asia. The withdrawal of American troops from South Korea confirmed the message. But not until 1949 when the USSR exploded their first nuclear weapon did Stalin approve of Kim Il-Sung’s invasion of the South. Saddam Hussein also got the wrong message when he perceived a “hands off” attitude from the US regarding Kuwait.

In all cases there were plenty of indications that a prominent and larger attack could take place. In all cases statements and attitudes from American politicians encouraged those actions.
Now we are in another election cycle and the economy it’s pushed to the fore. Yes, it’s normal to do so; some states like Michigan are suffering a local recession while others even come here to recruit employees. But overall the national economy (minus the gas problem) is stable. In fact, it has been a great economy to the point that what we experience is the syndrome of the fat cows. We have gotten used to so many extras that even a call for retracting a bit on our personal luxuries is perceived as a great debacle.

So whether repeating that we are in a recession, or that Bush lied or that Obama is a secret Muslim or agent of hope, the attempt will be made on the voters “to feel” not “to think”.

According to “liberal” political advisors like Dr. George Lakoff, a linguist and cognitive scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, the opinions of voters are neither logical nor self-arrived at, therefore they should be ignored. Political and judiciary elites know better. Thus, although Californians voted against same sex marriage their democratic wish should not be obeyed. And since we are all so easily manipulated politicians, especially if liberals want to win, should have no ethical qualms about it. Instead they should rely less on facts and more on emotional images and dramatization, “casting progressives as heroes, and by implication, conservatives as villains.” The thing is to “say things not once, but over and over. Brains change when ideas are repeatedly activated.” Joseph Goebbels must be proud in his grave; finally even the left has seen the light.

But "conservatives" who fear a Marxist regime coming under Obama perhaps should lay their fears asides. Those high-power rich lawyers and Wall Street powers behind the orchestration of the Obama multimedia phenomenon are in the least anti-capitalists, certainly not George Soros. On the contrary, they are neo-capitalists. Instead of open capitalism they want state-capitalism. Instead of national capitalism they have already been practicing transnational finances where old colonialism is no longer necessary. As long as regimes such as China and Cuba guarantee their investments—even as repressive as they may be against their own people—colonial style relations won’t be necessary also as long as such regimes control access to information, especially the Internet.

It appears that this time around voters will be left to choose between left-wing “liberal” state capitalism and right-wing “conservative” amoral capitalism. In either case, it is not “Marxism”, “socialism” or “Communism” what should concern the voters but a neo-fascistic tendency to control thought and speech; the manipulation of “the masses” through the use of old stimulus and response, reward and punishment psychology, and the use of “slogans”, that most of anti-logic devices, whether dressed as “nationalist and patriotic” appeals or as “politically correct” morality.

So here we are again. According to the U.N. atomic energy chief, Mohamed El-Baradei, Iran is six months away from its first nuclear weapon. Statements made from that country against a U.S. ally in the region have not been ambiguous. What will the American voters respond to this time “It’s the economy, stupid” or “It’s foreign affairs, dummy”? Will unfinished business once again come to the fore?

The chickens coming home to roost

2008-05-27T17:05:00.003-04:00

Reflexion and analysis

When Barack Obama was here in Grand Rapids, I noticed two things. One was about the crowd which went to hear him talk, and the other about how the Obama campaign took advantage of the occasion to steal the advantage out of Clinton’s recent victories with the announcement of the endorsement by ex-vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

About the crowd two things were noticeable. One was that it was difficult to distinguish between those who were already convinced followers and how many were simply curious or just wanted to be present before a historical event. Some said to be already decided to vote for Obama, while others admitted being there for them and their children to see a historical figure. In both groups something caused some resonance.

But with all the attention and enchantment of the American press for Obama, why hasn’t he been able to mop up and consolidate his candidacy? Or as we say in these parts, why hasn’t he been able to close the sale and seal the contract? The race is still tight between the two pretenders of the Democratic Party, and the conflict has nakedly exposed not only political but also generational social fissures.

Things have happened in the Obama campaign since those euphoric days of the triumph in Iowa. Besides the support and attraction among the young—the majority of which have no knowledge nor the remotest historical memory of the decade of the sixties—among the electorate of the middle class many are now hesitating about their support.

The discovery of a twenty year association with radical minister Wright, whose scandalous statements represent traces of bitterness, even of a racial tone, against a White majority, has had an impact against Obama’s campaign. Loyal to his friend, Obama didn’t distance himself from those statements on time but perhaps only too late, after the reverend made even worst statements while trying to explain what he previously said. Among those statements were, that the events of 9/11 represented “the chickens coming home to roost” and that “God damned America.”

But this has not been the only factor which has slowed down the enthusiasm for Obama. His own statements, regarding how he would handle U.S. foreign affairs, have only highlighted the accusation from the Clinton camp of Obama’s inexperience and naïveté. His proposal of “direct diplomacy” without preconditions with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela and Iran has been seen not only as naïve but also as illusory and even dangerous.

Of them he has said, “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.” But if the size and economy of a country were the only factors to consider when determining a danger potential then Afghanistan under the Taliban shouldn’t have been considered as a threat. But the electorate knows of Afghanistan’s role in the 9/11 attacks.

In the same manner, Obama reminds us as examples of “direct diplomacy” that “That's what Kennedy did with Kruschev, that's what Reagan did with Gorbachev, that's what Nixon did with Mao.” But history reminds us that the meeting between Kennedy and Kruschev was a disaster in which Kruschev considered Kennedy as an inexperienced young man, and which led to the Berlin Wall crisis and the “Missile crisis of October.” The meetings between Reagan and Gorbachev and Nixon and Mao were preceded by extensive periods of preparation and not by “direct diplomacy.”

The Clinton campaign has taken advantage of all this. But it is also fitting to ask, why hasn’t Clinton been able to consolidate what was expected to be a virtual coronation? Let’s try it.

When political parties discovered the marketing techniques of triangulation, they discovered how to pull and manipulate the voters by their strings presenting their parties and their political postures as one more product in the consumer market. The experts of that technique were the Clintons.

But people are tired of extremes and it is not only an American phenomenon, but also anywhere else were the politics of consumers have been practiced. It is not that people are looking for the center for center’s sake, but that people know, by observing recent history that in the extremes there is only part of the truth or part of the solution. And they prefer even the vagueness of slogans like “change” and hope”, products of a loquacity which has found its timing, to more of the same from parties and politicians of always.

In the same manner that commercial campaigns are constructed from various parts of the social body, candidates and party programs seem to be made from putting together and manufacturing them in the same manner that Dr. Frankenstein built a monstrous being from various parts of different cadavers. Sometimes those creatures return only to devour their creator. As reverend Wright said, “the chickens are coming home to roost.”

Spanish translation:

http://elmismodia.blogspot.com/

THE DEFROSTING OF THE BIG DEFAULT?

2008-04-03T23:15:00.003-04:00

The academic world moves at the speed of a glacier. It is a culture within a culture, and more often than not a culture which examines other cultures and rarely, if ever, examines itself. It is a culture with all the elements of a culture, and at times a very conservative culture, even if coded in the language of progressive terminology. It has its own code of words that shouldn't be used and those that must be used instead. It is even faddish and provincial at times.

As cultures do, it moves slowly but when it moves, it moves. And it leaves tracks which then can only be erased by new tracks, when the next glacial period of intellectual reflection rolls by. Attending a recent, and excellent, two-day “Symposium on Latin America” at Grand Valley State University on the topic of “marginalization and exclusion”, we detect what looks like a movement into one of those glacial periods in Latin American Studies (LAS). Now is up to those of us, who follow those developments closely, to translate the necessary language of research for the concerned citizen.

One of the observable dynamics in that culture is the difference in concerns and approaches between new and established scholars. Among those of the established generation of LAS specialists attending, there seemed to be a mix of relief and sadness that the expectations for Latin America, coming from academic political identification with certain movements in the region since the 70s and 80s, have not come to pass. It looks like the thawing of the Cold War is finally been accepted there.

At the same time it was a bit scary to see younger and upcoming scholars parroting terminology and mannerisms of speech of the older generation, as if without thought, either because it has been drilled into them or because they fear moving ahead through that Ph.D. application or dissertation unless they do so.

There were also some puzzling feelings at the political choices of Latin American indigenous peoples, who seem to be rejecting the totalitarian rhetoric of radical Marxist inspired movements, in preference of more participation in the democratic process.

We brought up the subject of the silence in academia, for near fifty years, of human rights violations, the usurpation of a revolution, and the social and political marginalization of a “racialized” population in Cuba. An academician responded that finally there is some recognition about the failure in Cuban human rights. It took 49 years! Yet, this will remain a stain in the conscience of academia. Just as we still ask how it was possible the world looked the other way on the treatment of Jews in Germany, future generations, especially in Cuba, will ask how we failed to recognize their oppression.

Yet, policy makers, policy analysts, advisers, ethicists, commentators depend on the slow, painstaking, often dreary doldrums of serious scientific academic work. We need to rely on the intellectual honesty that seeks "objective" and "disinterested" insights into reality. Some people think that perhaps that would be too much to ask, I don't think so.

Very rich information was shared in that very useful symposium about changes in Latin America, which we hope to continue reflecting upon on later issues. Among them is the fact of an opening of new political spaces, especially for the indigenous peoples, which seem to be expanding and becoming more inclusive.

One of the changes brought about by the thawing of “The Big Default”—the U.S. as the cause of all Cuban and Latin America’s woes—is the realization that Latin American problems were, and are after all, Latin American problems.

Perhaps we are witnessing a move toward scholarship that sees the great divides on a more human scale, one that goes beyond the limited spaces of ideology and more in scale with human needs. Perhaps we are beginning to see the opening of spaces of inclusion in Latin American studies, with scholarship that seeks to understand the nature of the subject under study from their point of view and not from the point of view of our own and exported political dynamics.

Spanish translation
http://elmismodia.blogspot.com/

Castro II and the mediating T-shirts

2008-02-27T16:11:00.006-05:00

The most truthful words ever said about and from the Cuban “revolution” were those said by Raúl Castro during his coronation as Castro II, “Fidel is Fidel”. There is also no better phrase than this anti-dialectical tautology for expressing the intricate conundrum attributed to the French which says, “The more things change, the more they remain the same”.

In spite of a memo from CNN to its reporters urging them to report that Fidel “did bring racial integration”, the truth is that the “revolution” did not end racism in Cuba but transmuted it.

In fact, the social fabric from where social and political, and revolutionary and socialist criticism comes today in Cuba is not from Whites and their politico-racial continuity, but from the marginalized Afro-Cuban population. The same to whom it is not permitted to enter hotels or beaches for European Whites. In fact, the vast numbers of political prisoners are Black or Mulattos.

Those who should be more critical against this anachronism in Cuba should be the American Left. Unfortunately, and paraphrasing the late and salty Gov. Ann Richards, most of them “can't he'p it, they were born with an anti-American foot in their mouths”. But the anti-Americanism of some Americans does not equal Cuban reality, no matter how much Michael Moore imagines it.

It’s understandable how hard it is to realize one has been fooled, especially when it is by self-delusion. That is why we understand the sadness of some in the world’s Left in facing the truth. But change in Cuba is not a matter, contrary to what Frei Betto may say, of whether capitalism will return to Cuba or not. Capitalism has been operating in Cuba for a long time. What happens is that it is a capitalism of a military state, which is not open to the people and is the property of and operated by elites of wealthy military men.

It is not that one wishes a brute and inhumane capitalism for Cuba. Only that it would be good if the military capitalists that today manage Cuba would accept that they are capitalists and begin to democratize that capitalism for the rest of Cubans. Especially since, just as the rest of Latin America, the failure of the economy in Cuba it is not due to so-called “neo-liberalism”, but to the centralization of capital and the lack of democratic and popular capitalism.

The other thing that has been said in Cuba, and which qualifies as one the greatest idiocies worthy of “The Manual of the Perfect Latin American Idiot”, is the quote which appeared in Granma with the closing of the National Assembly or confirmation of the succession: “The peoples of America are more free and prosperous the more they distance themselves from the United States”. Would that be the reason why they demand an end to the embargo? So they can distance themselves more from the United States?

The succession, and the manner, in which the revolution has collapsed into a military dictatorship with state capitalism, are proof that there was never a revolution in Cuba but usurpation. In reality, it was always a personal and caudillo dictatorship.

Communist alienation

A few months ago the rest of the world celebrated the International Day of Human Rights and the Chancellor of Cuba, Pérez Roque, announced to the world that Cuba would finally sign international agreements on human rights, with some exceptions, of course. At the same time a government mob attacked 12 peaceful pro-human rights demonstrators. What did the mob yell at them? “Down with human rights!”

The mediating T-shirts

As one commentator has said, power in Cuba has become a kind of “Buena Vista Social Club” of the governing “socialist” class, a kind of nostalgic and exotic imaginary for North American academicians and the last refuge for those straggling in the gutters of history. And while that musical group reminds us of the delicious roots of Salsa—Cuban “rumba” and “guaracha”—the rebellious interlocutor of young Cuban society today is its “salsified” Hip-hop. Today, that youth which has been excluded from the power structure, and even reprimanded for suggesting any possibility of change is the one challenging ideological dogma.

Recently, the use of a group of young people as showcase of new openness backfired when they strongly questioned Ricardo Alarcón, among other things, as to why Cubans are not free to travel abroad. One of them wore a T-shirt with the “@” symbol, an intelligent protest against Internet control by state security. Somehow the video of the encounter went around the world causing great embarrassment to the regime for the paternalistic manner in which Alarcón answered.

The student was then “invited” to appear before the media to “explain” that he was not negatively criticizing the revolution and to deny the mediating meaning of the T-shirt. If that young student is typical of university students in Cuba, the future of Cuba is brilliant. What did the student do in order to please the demand of the government? He affirmed that his criticism was not against the revolution but in favor, to improve it. For those young people the words “revolution” and “socialism” mean something else. He appeared on the TV program wearing another T-shirt. No, not a T-shirt with the image of “Che” or Fidel, or any regime symbol. It was the face of Martí.

Spanish Translation
http://elmismodia.blogspot.com/

A Radical Center?

2008-01-07T15:31:00.000-05:00

Are you tired of the bickering extremes? Are you tired of seeing the time and resources of the American people—your time and resources—wasted in bitter and inefficient “nothingness”? Well, you are not alone. It seems that a good sizeable portion of the American people in the middle feels the same way.

Judging by the state of the run-ups to the primaries it looks like the American electorate seems to be looking for a candidate who is paying attention to the center.

Candidates who seem to be calling for change from the programmatic talking points and from the pre-determined agendas by pressure groups are doing better in the polls than those who are perceived as extremes.

This doesn’t mean that the American people are expecting politicians not to have principles and beliefs. But in their own daily lives, people know that many problems do not require a full-fledge battle in order to solve them.

On the other hand, some Americans like New York Times firebrand columnist Paul Krugman, think differently and are actually calling for more partisanship (NY Times 12/26/07). He thinks that the reason for the lowest approval ratings of Congress in history is because Democrats are not “partisan” enough.

Others, like Congressman Peter Hoekstra, think the extremes are part of the problem, not the solution, to solving problems which require practical approaches, not ideological debates (GR Press 12/18/07). He thinks that both political parties need to move toward a “radical middle” to start dealing with problems in the country. However, he further goes on saying, when members of both parties try to come together to work on issues they get bashed by the extremes of both parties.

We all have heard that truth always lies in the middle. That may or may not be true itself but one thing is true, there is plenty of evidence of how the extremes have often led us to historical tragedies. From Russia to Spain, and almost most recently in Venezuela, to our own nation, the pages of human history are fraught with civil wars the result of the intransigence, intolerance, selfishness and propaganda wars of the extremes.

Claiming each to have a total grasp and the only possible version of the truth or only correct option in a situation of conflict, the extremes often overlook, sometimes intentionally, the possibility of practical compromise. Each thinks they have a radical understanding of a situation, and understanding of the roots of a problem (true meaning of the word radical), and thus a unique solution. Yet most of the times they are simply standing or looking at it from the limbs of their extreme position and not from the center were the roots truly are.

What Congressman Hoekstra calls “the radical middle”, and I call the radical center, is not and should not be a refuge to avoid taking hard decisions on any subject. It is neither a way to compromise on principles but a way to focus on essentials and on getting things done.

The extremes are minorities but they are loud, vociferous and valuable at bringing attention to issues. Yet most of the time they have become most effective at blocking solutions to the very problems they wish to solve and protest loudly about. American voters need to support those members of their parties who seek in the best of American civic traditions to meet with others in the middle. Even when some, like Mr. Krugman, believe that “That middle ground doesn't exist”.

In a diverse and pluralistic society such as ours, in the middle of an increasingly shrinking world, we must value and keep in mind the heritage of civility of the American Revolution. Congressman Hoekstra has expressed the same frustration that most Americans feel but he has also proposed a challenge in the middle of our civic and political discourse. Let’s welcome it.

OBAMA MAKING TRACKS

2007-12-05T17:34:00.000-05:00

Do you remember “Jimmy Who?” That was the way the media referred to the presidential candidacy of then nationally unknown Jimmy Carter. More or less in the same manner reference was made of the lack of experience of a young senator named John F. Kennedy. But besides being little known they had other things in common. Conditions for their elections were in their favor.

Tired of a long occupation of the White House by Republican presidents, the electorate looked for change, something new and refreshing. There also existed an undercurrent generational change and two recent unpopular wars in the background of the previous administrations.

In all polls, Hillary was ahead among Democrat candidates. That has changed. In Iowa Obama has gained ground, impressively surpassing Senator Clinton; at least he is at a tie. Yet, Hillary is still the favored one among African Americans. The “educational-welfare-Democratic Party complex” still rules there. Or it could be due to the fact that African Americans do not see a need to elect the first African American president since, as it used to be said, Bill Clinton was the first Black president of the U.S.

Enters Obama, almost bragging, justifiably to a certain point, that he did not support the military intervention in Iraq—although we hope he won’t want to drink from the cup of victory later. In this, at least, there is the appearance of consistency which contrasts with the rest of Democrat candidates. He also says that the generation of the 60s, a jab at Sen. Clinton, is burnt out and only offers more of the same, more of the stale and divisive politics.

For the generation of the 60s the upcoming presidential elections well may be the last opportunity to realize their dreams of a Woodstock society. But there is another generation that has grown under the influence of the intellectual extortion of political correctness, imposed on them by that same 60s generation, and is reacting by rebelling against the old generation by creating their own worldview, or rather non-worldview, or by being apathetic toward politics. Toward where a new generation is going to take the U.S. is the question in these elections.

But will Obama be capable of completely transcending the agendas of the 60s, which he now criticizes, or will he be captive to the generational politics of his party? ¿Can he lead us to a revitalization of our sense of individual self-reliance in the American character, or will he lead us to a continuation of the culture of plantation politics? Can he overcome the obstacles of the “educational-welfare-Democratic Party complex”?

¿What needs Obama in order to win? That depends on what Obama represents. The thing is that Obama is situated in a good historical junction at this moment, although I believe that not even his team knows it. Obama represents the success of the civil rights movement, but he does not represent the generation who fought that struggle. He represents the “American Dream” of immigrants but he is not an immigrant. He represents youth and new impetus, but he is tied to a stagnant political dynamic and language.

Obama needs to move to the center, not in the dishonest, opportunistic and triangulated manner of the Clintons but in an honest way. And that is possible because that is where most people are. The American electorate is manifesting tiredness with the heavy ideological cultural wars, the inefficiency of politicians in dealing with practical issues and yet this doesn’t mean that they have become socialists. The Democratic Party confusing the loud screeching of its fringe groups with the voice of the people assumed that the American people have manifested discontent and impatience with the pace of the Iraq involvement because they want defeat not victory.

But with the positive changes occurring in Iraq (including a recent request by the Iraqi government asking the U.S. to stay) Democrats are already leaving aside the Iraq bashing to concentrate on other issues. The struggle in the Democratic Party now is between the establishments of the old nomenclature of the 60s, the apparatchiks of feminism-Stalinism and the Clintonistas, and between others that tired of the “same old politics” look for change (Obama’s campaign theme). The latter are not so sure that they want a return to the White House of the finger-wagging president.

But in foreign affairs Obama is inexperienced and has expressed immaturity in his comments such as saying that he would invade Pakistan, or that he would negotiate directly with leaders hostile to the U.S. In that field Hillary takes the lead in spite of her contradictions. But Ted Sorensen, old time “Kennedyista”, has endorsed Obama saying that such inexperience is not so different from that of JFK, who according to Sorensen later demonstrated qualities of a great statesman.

Yet, is the Democratic Party ready for a return to a “Kennedyesque” posture in domestic and foreign policies? Strong fiscal rhetoric and strong pro national defense and promotion of democratic values abroad were trademarks of an idealistic generation under the leadership of JFK. Ted Sorensen may be correct; Obama’s candidacy does somehow resemble JFK’s. But to be more so it needs a foreign policy that does not lend moral support to international drug peddlers like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez in the Black and inner city communities.

More and more parents of minority children are heard expressing concern and discontent with the “educational-welfare-Democratic Party complex”. Obama, due to his personal experience is well located to offer change in that establishment. That is why those who have questioned his racial makeup and have brought the issue of race forth are not the White electorate but the old establishment of the civil rights struggle. Ironically, the questioning of his “blackness” by the civil rights establishment may have been the best thing happening to him.

But the greatest challenge for Obama is not only to overcome the racial question. The problem is winning the Democrats over Hillary and the “Reagan Democrats” who left the party long time ago, since and because of the Clintons. Those that still linger, there, somewhere, are the ones Obama must conquer. However, there are others that, because of the way that the Democrat leadership has played politics with the life and blood of our soldiers and fellow citizens in Iraq, can never again vote Democrat. For them, not even promises under a new rhetoric will suffice.

As long as Obama continues to hang tight to the contradictions he won’t win. At least at this moment he doesn’t seem able to overcome those barriers. But he has the opportunity to at least, return the Democratic Party, or a good portion of it, back to its senses. To loosen the party from the grip of the unhinged MoveOn.org and other similar beings alienated from reality, could be one good contribution that his presence in this race may achieve. At least he has done something the generation of the 60s hasn’t. He has admitted he did inhale.

As we have said before, the future of the U.S. is in the transmission of its values to a new national generation and to the generations of immigrants. Perhaps Obama will rise to the occasion or perhaps he will miss his time. Ironically, it seems that Obama would have better chances running as a moderate Republican than as a MoveOn.org Democrat.

(Spanish translation) http://elmismodia.blogspot.com/
Related news
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1196545145238660.xml&storylist=alabamanews

//www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/opinion/02rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Since the original posting of this op/ed the following news items have appeared which confirm the trends.

"Bill is every bit as black as Barack." "He's probably gone with more black women than Barack," --Andrew Young. Confirmation of the fissure in the African American community whether real "blackness" means being part of the "educational-welfare-Democratic Party-Civil Rights Establishment complex". AP story
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071208/D8TDI1B00.html

Democrats equally balanced between Clinton and Obama.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=anRcoLyfN0VM

Oprah Campaigns for Obama in SC and NH. "I'm sick of politics as usual," Winfrey said.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TENBE00&show_article=1

My views keep getting reconfirmed: A generational gap.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071215/NATION/112150050/1001

Latin America and its New Kings

2007-10-29T10:19:00.000-04:00

Successions, Not Transitions
October 24, 2007

I’m sorry for friends who are disappointed awaiting transitions but Cuba is a neo-monarchy, with all its repartitions of small kingdoms, ducats, earldoms, etc. The thing is that over there they are called Ministry of the Interior, Minister of State Security, etc. He who entitles and he who removes, he who awards and confiscates is and always has been Fidel. See the case of the once disgraced and then reinstated Ramiro Valdéz, who was once Fidel’s Beria. According to international investigations his personal fortune is worth millions. Now he controls the kingdom of communications.

Those same investigations reveal that Raúl, Fidel and their progenies have properties in Spain, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Italy, just in case they have to leave in a hurry. Cuba has the highest incidence of suicides in the hemisphere, and according to a recent interior poll only 4 per cent of the population blames “the embargo” for the conditions in Cuba.

Fidel has sucked dry even the soul of the Cuban people. What was once one of the most beautiful capitals in the world is now in ruins. “Havana: The New Art of Making Ruins”, a recent German made documentary, reveals not only the impossible to repair decay of its architecture but also how that same destruction has developed at par with the destruction of the soul and hopes of Havana’s population; at the same rhythm and in more than a symbolic manner with the decay of the decrepit body of its Nero.

Those braggadocio and machista pronouncements about Cuban sovereignty, as representative also of the defense of the sovereignty of peoples that once inspired the so-called “Third World” ended there, as speeches which now echo empty in the Plaza of the Revolution. That sovereignty which Martí and Maceo dreamt is not now the sovereignty of the people but now resides in the direct succession of a family member.

Not even as a final act is he capable of returning sovereignty back to the people, not even as a paternalistic act of generosity. Now, instead of freeing his vassals, King Fidel has sold them to another king, Chávez, with the rationalization that the defense of the sovereignty of Cuba is a “ridiculous adhesion to sterile sovereign-ism.” In other words, the same thing the kings of Europe used to do when they traded and negotiated whole countries since sovereignty resided in them, as given by divine right, and not in the people.

Raúl, on his part, pretends to and asks for direct negotiations with President Bush before negotiating with the Cuban people. That is monarchy. In the meanwhile, the U.S. is already offering Cuba a counter offer to the annexationist offer of Chavez. Bush has gone directly over the heads of Fidel and Raúl and has made an offer to the lesser kings. Before you come under Chávez’ command, Bush is saying to the military in Cuba, look at how open doors up north offer more than what more of the same is offered by the one with the Bolívar complex.

The world is reorganizing itself rapidly into new alliances. When could we have imagined that Latin America would be courted by three pursuers? On the north, is courted by the U.S., on the west by China and now from the east by the newly introduced Iran.

But in this world one thing still remains constant, “The Business of America is business.” This quote, attributed to Calvin Coolidge, and often used in pejorative manner is the best statement of what is in essence, and always has been, the foreign policy of the U.S. But those who quote it in pejorative terms, especially in Latin America, demonstrate ignorance and a lack of understanding of the thinking and ethos of North Americans, and when they do it speaks more of their own prejudices than of an objective understanding of the American way.

The business of America has always been business. But for negotiations between countries to occur they must be sovereign. He who kept himself in power using the defense of sovereignty as the greatest bulwark of defense and self-justification, now redefines it as like any commercial product offered to the best buyer, "the new, all-improved sovereignty". The Cuban people must reclaim their sovereignty before it’s too late. Fidel has already redefined it and once more not in Cuba’s favor.

Let's Start Again, From the Beginning

2007-07-10T12:15:00.000-04:00

I never thought that the immigration reform legislation was going to be successful. There are many interests, in both parties in the U.S. and in the countries from where illegal immigrants arrive, who benefit from the present state of affairs. In other words, the immoral state of “status quo” is convenient.

We have said it before that the state of illegal immigration is immoral for various reasons. Among a few, first for the exploitation and the marketing of human beings as simple utilitarian instruments of production, and secondly for the various degrees of hypocrisy, let’s call them “contradictions”, which envelope all.

Of course, this is not the same as saying that the poor workers who cross the border in an illegal manner are illegal human beings. All human beings are in dignity of their own humanity. But the act of crossing the border of a foreign country without permission is an act which is internationally recognized as an illegal act. And here is the first contradiction. None of the countries from where illegal immigrants come from are countries that do not enforce respect of their own borders. And yet, only of the United States open borders is expected.

The second contradiction, although perhaps made with good intentions, is about solidarity with illegal immigrants. And it is from here that one cannot even discuss the subject rationally. We have gone in public discourse from “illegal immigrants” to “undocumented immigrants” and from there to “undocumented workers” to then calling all illegal immigrants simply “immigrants” and up to the most recent designation by a leading US senator of “undocumented Americans”.

With that manipulation of language it is easy to see why when we speak of “immigrants” those opposed to the present state of illegal immigration are labeled “anti-immigrant”. This is not only a falsehood, but it also helps nothing in solving the problem. All this language has the one and only purpose of painting as villains those who simply see the problem for what it is, illegal immigration; in this case, an unaccounted demographic invasion of our territory by a foreign national population.

However, we must solve the problem because the lack of a solution is no solution at all. But this time those who say they want dialogue and debate must attempt two things. The first is not to make villains out of those who have a different point of view, and secondly, is to put aside euphemisms. Therefore, those who are against illegal immigration are not against immigration and immigrants.

And although there is now an effort by some legislators to impose measures worthy of a Chavez against talk-radio, it wasn’t “conservative” talk-radio but the insult to the intelligence of the American people which gave stimulus to opposition to a hurried, in secret and without debate legislation. This hurry led both political parties to try to impose a solution not from what is good for the country but for their partisan interests. But at a popular level the affair transcended party politics and the majority of the American people let their legislators know that they want a fair solution, that they are not “anti-immigrant” as they are accused of but that they want a secure and just country for their own workers.

Two things have become clear for politicians and the elites. One is that freedom of the press, whether radio, printed or electronic, is the last bastion of popular freedom. And the other, is that the American people is a generous and practical one and is desirous of solving the problem of illegal immigration. But only when its security and respect for its borders is guaranteed will it be disposed to consider long term solutions including paths to citizenship. So let’s start again, with a principle, the principle that all countries have a right to the respect of its borders. The rest is just a matter of acting in good faith.

(Excellent related article)
http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?article=392

"Divide and conquer"...

2007-05-03T16:21:00.000-04:00

...not the formula of "enemies" but a "poor minded" recipe for obtaining a corner in the market of ideas

There are two mentalities between the so-called "Latinos" or "Hispanics" regardless of which term one prefers. One is a bitter mentality full of personal resentments projected against a "racist" society where one may find all kinds of excuses for personal frustrations. The other mentality, although it recognizes the social problem of prejudice and racism, is a positive and constructive mentality.

The first, seeks to burn bridges, create disunity and paints itself as victim while promoting that mentality and living well from the same misery it criticizes. The second mentality sees in challenges, opportunities to build bridges and for encouraging heroes to cross them. The first lives out of despair, and the second lives out of hope.

Let's call the first mentality "poverty of mind" and the second mentality "constructive". The "poverty of mind" mentality sees faults in everything. It cannot recognize historical progress and lives in a past of broken dreams, whether personal, political or social. It looks at the world based on failed formulas and theories, and always expects the worse in order to prove that they are right.

The constructive mentality is always attentive to positive changes and considers how they may be applied to contemporary situations. It does not live from old ideologies or in worn out schemes in order to analyze reality and it gives the benefit of the doubt to those who think differently.

The "poverty of mind" mentality sees in the opponent not an honest human being with different ideas and experiences but a class enemy (even if they are of the same class), and an ethnic traitor; and for being mentally blocked they do not have the capacity to accept the challenge of different ideas and to respond to them adequately, but they have no recourse but to appeal to personal attacks.

The constructive mentality does not consider the opponent as a barbarian and therefore it argues against the ideas and not against the person. The constructive mentality celebrates the successes of all and laments the failures of others.

The "poverty of mind" mentality demands dialogue and debate but in reality it looks for a monologue to use as platform from where to silence the other. It claims freedom of expression as a human right but looks the other way when that right is denied to others of his group, if they do not share his ideology.

The constructive mentality invites to dialogue since it is not afraid of personal growth or of discovering the truth in any issue. And it searches more for what there is in common than for the differences that separate us.

The "poverty of mind" criticizes those whom by their own efforts and dreams build enterprises that employ hundreds of people, hospitals, philanthropic foundations, educational institutions and other contributions for the common good, while wanting to be included in their businesses. That mentality uses the means of communication to create rumors, create gossip, and foment false disunity and defamation. They confuse what a newspaper is supposed to be with a party pamphlet.

The constructive mentality creates, through the media, avenues for the expression of different points of view in our community about the issues that affect us all. It doesn't see in the difference of ideas a threat to the "union" that the "poverty of mind" claims to promote, but sees in those differences a rich and vital community full of real diversity.

The "poverty of mind" seeks shelter in a refuge of its own exclusivity and in isolation from the other. The constructive mentality invites those of the "poverty of mind" to reconsider and even to friendship in spite of the differences. "Latino" or "Hispanic", I'm happy to be on the constructive side, the American side.

One huge hypocritical “scandal”

2007-03-27T16:19:00.000-04:00

When my brother was selected by the US Army as one of five top graduates of his medical class and sent to Walter Reed we all felt very proud. He remained there five years. During that time, as respiratory therapist, he attended Sen. Biden, President Reagan, Vice President Bush, President Duarte of El Salvador, and the families of members of the Cabinet and of Congress.

Now we hear that there is a scandal in Walter Reed, being that American wounded in today’s conflicts are not being treated right. And if that is so, then shame on all involved. But how do we match that view with recent countless coverage in the news of how advanced and top-of-the-line Walter Reed is as a medical facility? The answer is politics, pure politics.

Yes, there have been cases of bureaucratic bungling. What do you expect from bureaucracies? But the real scandal is not in the lack of paint, here and there, or the Merry-go-round that families and soldiers may be put through now and then. The real scandal is in the out patient and general treatment services in the VA system; they have been caught with their pants down and they know it.

Since the Vietnam War the US military has not treated as many wounded veterans as it does now. Now they have tied this “Walter Reed scandal” to the VA hospitals as an apparent comprehensive examination of the veteran’s treatment, when anyone who has dealt with the VA system knows it has been in need of repair for decades.

The so-called Walter Reed Army Hospital scandal reminds me of the scene in Casablanca when corrupt inspector Renault claims “I’m shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling going on here”. They have known this for a long time.

The VA system has become a political reward system for hacks affiliated to a political party via affirmative action. This is no slight on the many good and qualified people that work there, but an elaborate and sophisticated system of underlying political connections operates to direct the filling of positions and vacancies in the VA hospitals system. This is where the real investigation needs to happen.

In the meantime politicians have chosen to smear the reputation of those who work at Walter Reed. And before anyone jumps and thinks we are talking party politics here, the problem cuts across party lines. The issue is a hypocritical attack not only on a venerable historical institution and the dedicated people that work there but most importantly the neglect that some of our best citizens suffer after offering life and limb for the rest of us. They deserve better than political grandstanding and posturing.

And yet, we have also found out that the present state of affairs at Walter Reed and the VA hospitals is the result of—guess—cuts by Congress. But don’t expect these cuts to have affected the best hospital suites and beds in town; the ones at Walter Reed reserved for top politicians in DC and foreign dignitaries, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

The medical and general personnel at Walter Reed are the cream of the crop. After all, politicians only want the best for themselves and their families while leaving the VA system to the politics of Affirmative Action. It is part of their private health care plan. No HMOs there. No waiting in line for hours as in your average VA hospital.

Perhaps, as in Casablanca, if they want to solve the “Walter Reed scandal” they should start by “rounding up the usual suspects”.

2007-01-06T21:11:00.000-05:00

"I am a Ford, not a Lincoln"

Distance in time and history contain in them the balm which alleviates and heals wounds. "I am a Ford, not a Lincoln," once said recently deceased President Ford in a humble manner with double meaning. He was making reference to his last name and that of another president and in a satirical sense to the brand names of two types of automobiles. He wanted to say that he was himself and not another person. Humbly he was asking of us not to expect from him the greatness of a President Lincoln.

Ironically, Gerald R. Ford, just as the one he did not want to be compared to, presided over a moment of national division, a moment where political polarization had fractured the national community. He was a man who framed by his own time, left nevertheless, his mark on that time. Ford, similarly to Lincoln, took on unpopular decisions and was accused of being, as said in today's phraseology, "a divider, not a 'uniter'." As was Lincoln, President Ford was not very popular during his own era. However, as time has passed, we have seen how those decisions which appeared divisive resulted in preserving a united nation.

Nixon suffered what no other president suffered as the result of his actions. His resignation, humiliation and place in history as the only president forced to resign went farther than any possible sentence… but for some that was not enough…they wanted to see him even more humiliated… rub his nose on the ground and dance around his defeat… see him behind bars. However, as old Samurai warriors of old Japan thought-"Do not humiliate your enemy in his defeat and leave him space for saving face, and perhaps one day he will be your friend."-moving forward proved to be the wisest choice.

Many wanted to make ashes out of Nixon. Many wanted to blame him for a war that he inherited and which he simply wanted to end without long term negative consequences for his country. Today, with the passage of time the majority of American people understand the wise decision by Ford, and the contributions made by Nixon in domestic and foreign policies.

When President Reagan presided he was accused of being a warmonger, an agent of division, not of unity, to say the least he was not of the liking of all. With the passage of time his role in ending the Cold War, the nuclear arms race and in advancing democracy in various parts of the world, including Latin America, was better appreciated. On his passing, the people poured out in spontaneous expressions of gratitude. Streets filled with people, most countries and diverse world leaders paid homage to him and when the funeral cortège went by truckers, homemakers and people of all types stopped traffic to see and salute his passing by. Time indeed provides perspective.

Of all recent presidents, and of those still living, it could be said that some that are hated will be reappraised by the valor of their decisions, others that were idolized will be less appreciated for their selfish and partisan interests. The first will be valued for placing the interest of the nation above the polls and elections, and the second will be forgotten for having placed their political careers and their legacies above the national welfare.

But President Ford was not just a man of his time but also of his upbringing and something in the character of Gerald R. Ford reflected the character of West Michigan. Neither as president nor as a person, nor as former president was there ever noticed the ostentatious egocentrism of other presidents now former presidents. Never was heard from him pronouncements against the policies of a sitting president, nor of public self-aggrandizement, nor of seeking attention for himself.

President Ford did not consider polls or the consequences of his pardon of Nixon but that which he understood was best for the country. Ford gave us a lesson in wisdom, compassion and loyalty. Yes, Ford said something true when he said he did not want to be compared to Lincoln; Ford was Ford.

A Tale of Two Elections

2006-11-20T23:26:00.000-05:00

A couple of months ago I learned from a fellow panelist at a conference at GVSU that there are elections in Cuba and that the people responsible for the assassination of Ché Guevara can be traced all the way to right-wingers in Hudsonville, Dick DeVos and Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute, not to mention the little green men that float outside my window at night. Of course, we must disregard the fact that five recent books from very top Cuban dissidents have all implied Fidel’s hand in the betrayal of Ché.

The point is that the political sport of elections has almost become as amusing to watch as the entire carnival atmosphere associated with the World Cup. Let’s look at two recent elections, first, the Nicaragua elections. Frankly, l was expecting multiple Ortegasms in the American media and the liberal academic establishment resulting from the triumph of the former Marxist guerrilla leader Daniel Ortega. But perhaps because those elections were happening simultaneously with the ones here their results didn’t get much attention. But I suspect something else.

Although Ortega was the sentimental preferential option of the liberal establishment in the US, he is no longer the same Ortega of old. Gone are the harsh anti-American rhetoric, the grandiose revolutionary plans and the Marxist ideology. At least, that is what he has been claiming ever since a few years ago he publicly recognized the errors and mistakes of his Sandinista administration, and since he returned the “confiscated” private property obtained personally through “las piñatas”, the windfall of private properties the “comandantes” appropriated for themselves.

To the chagrin of former comrades Ortega ran as a centrist, as a reformed democrat, as a believer in the free market and a believer in free elections holding to a fragile center-left-of-center coalition. Ironically, it was the intervention of a former “enemy”, Ronald Reagan, what brought Ortega back to power, electoral means, and not violent revolution.

Also, on the way to the American elections all kinds of generals and pundits were paraded through the liberal media echoing the words and position of Rep. Murtha. Now the same media is parading the same generals and pundits saying that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous and Rep. Murtha has been stabbed back. Yes, the Democrats ran as conservatives and finally achieved the parallel with Vietnam that they so had been wishing to have.

In an ironic twist of fate the analogy or parallel that opponents of the intervention in Iraq have been looking for from the beginning has been found: Democrats are seeking a political solution to a military problem. Irony of ironies, they have created for themselves a Nixonian quagmire. Soon we will be hearing of a new version of "Peace with honor".
So, about these two elections two questions remain. The question in the US is, will the Democrats be able to hold on to the pretend and superficial "conservative" coalition they have put together when James Carville and the Clinton’s "ex machina" is already calling for the head of Howard "Yee Haa" Dean?

And the question for Nicaragua is, can Daniel Ortega resist the temptation of looking back to Cuba, or even Venezuela, or will he find a sympathetic hand up north to help him hold his fragile coalition together? Let’s hope he finds one and let’s hope he means what he says. The Nicaraguan people have learned the difference between Chávez and Shanola.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO LIBERAL LIBERALISM?

2006-10-27T20:08:00.000-04:00

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OR AFFIRMATIVE FEAR?

I’m “a disgrace to the Hispanic race” and do not “represent the Latino community”. I am also “a racist”. Those were the epithets bestowed on me after a debate on Proposal 2 at a recent panel at Grand Valley State University. As a Hispanic I have been called many things, but now I am also a traitor to my "race". Only a couple of months ago I wasn’t immigrant or American enough to be part of a panel on immigration even though the conference was titled “Who is an American?”

What did I do to deserve such hurtful comments? I defended Ward Connerly’s right to freedom of speech, to having his opinion without having people question his ethnicity, race or constitutional rights. Mind you, I wasn’t necessarily defending Mr. Connerly’s position on affirmative action, although it was perceived that way. I was questioning some people who where questioning the right of Mr. Connerly to have and express an opinion regardless of how strongly one may disagree with it.

There is one thing the person issuing her verbal assault against me was right about, I do not represent the Latino community. Nobody has ever elected me to any position from where I can do that, nor do I want one. I represent only myself and my experiences, if they happen to coincide with similar experiences of millions of Hispanics that’s another matter. I have never been appointed nor have I appointed myself a “Hispanic leader”.

On another occasion where I was an invited panelist on immigration at the same university, the same person that assaulted me verbally heckled me on that occasion. Although the comments came from another Hispanic I understand how emotional these issues are for some people so I don’t take it too personal. But the fact that some people cannot even hear what you are saying and only what they think you are saying is indicative how emotion rules over reason in these cases.

On that occasion I was explaining how illegal immigration impacts on stereotypes, how they change perceptions. That person interpreted that I was expressing those stereotypes. She could not see the difference between what one says and what one says about what other people say. During the Q & A period she proceeded with a diatribe against me personally for “my’ prejudiced views. Although I explained during her non-stop harangue that I was not saying what she was attributing to me but citing an example, she could not see the difference. Although the audience understood what I was really saying, later I had the chance to confirm that they also understood the difference.

In this recent case I was actually seeking information on this issue of Proposal 2 but now that I see the hysterical and personal attacks not on the arguments of the other side but on the persons who differ, I’m inclined to believe that there are vested interests afraid of loosing privileges.

One can reasonably make allowances for the immaturity of student organizations to express their views in vociferous ways; even when one of their organizations distributes on campus a flyer that depicts a racist and grotesque cartoon representing Mr. Connerly as a puppet. But when an adult lawyer of the ACLU, like panelist Mark P. Fancher, said “I actually enjoy” attacking personally his opponent Mr. Connerly, then the merits of his argument not only diminish but sets a poor example for younger minds.

After having had a warm and high level exchange of ideas and concerns with panelist Mr. Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau, I noticed how members of the audience accosted Mr. Connerly about his right not only to his opinion but to be on campus to begin with. As a taxpayer and lover of freedom of speech I found that troubling, especially since the people involved seemed to be educated persons. The ironic thing is that these are the same people that are always demanding more dialogue and debate, and supposedly they stand for tolerance. But what they need to remember is that emotionalism is the fuel of demagoguery and demagoguery is the road to totalitarianism.

One of the issues raised by members of the audience was that this initiative was brought in from California and that Connerly had no right to do so. Yet, that is how many of the struggles and cases of Civil Rights in states such as Mississippi and Alabama were brought to the national fore, by having organizations from Northern states being concerned for issues in the South. As a matter of fact, as we write, 30 million dollars of Democratic Party funds are being pumped in to defeat an opponent of cloning in Missouri. And such was also the case in the defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, where out-of-state activists through websites and funding from outsiders like billionaire George Soros intervened in a state election. So what’s new?

If the authenticity of our ethnicity is going to be based on the correctness of our political opinions we are in a heap of trouble. That is why there are political prisoners in Cuba, among them Dr. Biscet, an Afro Cuban who is asking for the same civil rights his brethren struggled for in the U.S. and who recently got a 20 year prison sentence for doing so. But in Cuba it is not only a crime to think differently than the only party in existence, but to express those opinions as well. One man that knows the difference is James Meridith a warrior of American Civil Rights struggle who has recently not only condemned Castro’s regime and those who support it in the U.S., especially some Civil Rights leaders, but has also called for Blacks in Cuba, naively perhaps, to engage in civil disobedience.

As long as we stay on the track of dividing ourselves based on ideological or political affiliation we won’t have the ample vision we need to approach and solve the issues that affect us all. If we are seeking equality of treatment and rights in the larger society we must start ourselves with respecting the right to disagree without having our motives, integrity and persons assaulted.

But of all things what is really troubling is the feeling in some people that to think differently warrants an opponent the right to think one is worthy of being shouted down, excluded from debate and right down have one’s motivations questioned as if theirs was the only correct and moral position deprived of all hidden motivations and intentions.

Of course, I have been apologized to, sort of, I guess. But what I get, when and if I get an apology, it is on the basis of if I “find it offensive”. In other words, some people do not find it offensive on their own if their insults are made against people they disagree with as long as the person attacked is perceived as a “traitor”.

Perhaps the best and most relevant question from the audience was the one asking about the positive and negative aspects of Affirmative Action. Mr. Fancher said that Affirmative Action eliminated the “good ole boy” network and that may be true. But every social movement, idea or revolution goes through various stages of development; birth/innovation, rejection/persecution, acceptance/tolerance, establishment/settlement, corruption/decadence and finally obsolescence/irrelevance. It seems that Affirmative Action as an idea and project for the correction of past injustices and exclusion finds itself between establishment/settlement and corruption/decadence. If the old “good ole boy network” is being replaced by a new one based on one’s ideological or party affiliation we have indeed corrupted the idea and a new one needs to be thought out.

Why Jews Are Hated

2006-10-08T23:20:00.000-04:00

Hitler said, "Conscience is a Jewish invention. There is no such thing as truth; one must distrust mind and conscience.... The tablets of Sinai have lost their validity." And he was right when he said that conscience is a Jewish invention. It is generally recognized by scholars that the notion of events or actions as right or wrong, sinful or not, comes from the Jews and their monotheistic god.

This belief in one God was indeed also a revolutionary and radical concept in the world. Not only for the concept of singularity but also because of the personal nature of this god. Up to the moment when a tribal man from Mesopotamia introduced this concept, pagan gods were impersonal beings that did not care too much about their relationships with their worshippers. As long as the worshipper pleased the god the god didn't care. In fact, pagan gods didn’t care too much about how their worshipers behaved toward other people either. And the gods themselves were not kind, much less loving, to others.

In early or primitive civilizations up to the more advanced Roman Empire pagan societies saw forgiveness, kindness, mercy, and a forgiving heart as weaknesses. Since the defining moment of God’s identity at Sinai, our Western consciences became more aware of right and wrong. And the nurturing and development of a good conscience became not only a hallmark of Jewish ethics but also a key notion in Christianity, a movement which came from Judaism.

If you are Hitler and you want to do things that you know will shock and offend conscience, then the logical thing to do is destroy conscience. Once the Jews were dead, Hitler could do no wrong, because the people, with whom the idea of right and wrong originated, would all be dead, and so their ideas. The first thing German Christians joining the SS went through was a thorough indoctrination into the new German paganism. When the SS extermination groups were sent to Russia they were asked to leave their consciences behind, in fact, to pay no attention to conscience.

But it is not only Nazism that felt impeded by conscience. Since the advent of the social sciences and the “psychologization” of everything, conscience is also under direct attack, and so is guilt its trigger mechanism. A recent issue of MS magazine collected thousands of signatures of women who have had abortions. A quote in the article from one of the signatories, “I wanted to do something bigger with myself — I didn’t want to be stopped by anything,” is amazingly similar to one in an autobiography of a former member of the SS who said basically the same thing about joining.

The God of the Jews introduced not only the concept of conscience and guilt but the basis of love for all that is created. This personal god was not only just a deity but a parent. And the basis for all debt to him was a personal debt. Although guided by laws, morality was more than just ethics and a set of rules and laws. The debt was a covenantal relationship. The relationship itself became the basis for morality, in fact, it became morality itself.

Jews are hated because they represent a sting in our conscience. This is the basis for the new post-modern anti-Semitism. The absolute certainty of a God that is faithful is not one that is welcome today.

Why the Pope is Right - Part II, The Media

2006-09-17T20:19:00.000-04:00

Judging from the reporting in the media on the aftermath of the Pope's comments about faith and violence which included comments about violence in Islam, you would think that the media more than Muslims wants an apology from the Pope. It seems as if the media is joining "the Muslim World" in demanding an apology from the Pope and since its not getting one and is not going to get one it has made up one where there is none.

For two days I have surveyed the mayor news outlets in the U.S., Europe and Latin America and most of the headlines are attributing the Pope an apology he hasn't given and most likely won't give. Invariably they have translated the fact the Pope feels sad and sorry for the reaction of some Muslims to his words as the same as being sorry for what he said.

This Pope is a very intelligent man and he knew his words would have an effect as they have. He has illustrated the problem he wants to address by letting the fanatical Muslims illustrate it for him with their behavior. The Pope's address is meant for moderate Muslims. His words are to the effect that this is not the first time in history that the world faces the sword of Islam. He also makes the difference that the common love for God that Muslims have with other religions doesn't have to be trapped in the cultural times of Muhammad or of today. In other occasions this Pope has recognized good values in Islam and its practitioners.

Besides exposing the fanatics, the Pope is seeking a cultural dialogue, neither an ecumenical dialogue nor an interfaith dialogue. An ecumenical dialogue is truly only possible with other Christians. And although an interfaith dialogue can happen with other faiths, like Buddhism and Islam, interfaith dialogue is most fruitful with Judaism because it is the roots of Christianity and because we share saints, traditions and one basic faith and promise.

His words will spark more debate between Muslims than between Muslims and Christians. And this is precisely what this Pope is all about in his ministry to these times. Pope John Paul II faced a different world, one that was framed by the Cold War and the threat of atheistic Communism. There was a need for people of faith to unite before a common threat to religious freedom. Pope Benedict XVI faces a post-9/11 world where religious fanaticism threatens religious freedom.

In his recent lecture the Pope, as in other occasions, calls for a "clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come." Pope Benedict XVI sees Islam as a religion that is open to God and the violent trends in it as a matter of history. So his call to responsible Muslims is to reject those aspects that have to do more with human historical conditioning than with God's calling. And he is mostly concerned with mutual reciprocity in freedom of religion, especially in Muslim regions of the world where The Bible and the practice of Christianity is forbidden while Muslims throughout the Western world are allowed to freely practice their faith.

Judging from past coverage it looks like some in the media want an apology from the Pope to diminish his moral authority. The Pope has only said he laments the reaction of some Muslims but not what he said. And according to The Associated Press at least one Muslim spokesman interprets it correctly, "In Turkey, State Minister Mehmet Aydin said the pope appeared to be saying he was sorry for the angry reaction but not the remarks themselves.’ You either have to say this 'I'm sorry' in a proper way or not say it at all,' he told reporters in Istanbul, 'Are you sorry for saying such a thing or because of its consequences?'" Apparently, some people want to put the Pope through the same endless weeks of apologies they expect from politicians, especially conservative ones, went they commit a slip of the tongue.

These same group in the media has already given us a spin that the Pope has apologized. The proper translation of the word the Pope used in his statement "rammaricato" really means "lament", again for the reactions taken out of context, not for the truth contained in them. One can say to anyone, "It saddens me you feel offended by what I have said but what I'm saying is the truth." This is what the Pope has done.

But who do some in the media want to put through the grinder of serial apologies? They do not want an apology from Benedict XVI they want to catch Ratzinger, that's who. The New York Times editorially expressed this attitude very well: "A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue. The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal." The New York Times confuses tolerance with pusillanimous agreement and interfaith dialogue with politically correct capitulation.

I do not expect the Pope to apologize for what he said, which is not the quote he used in his lecture as illustration of the attitude he is addressing in contemporary radical Islam, that violence in the name of God is irrational and goes against God. I think it will be too much to expect the media to expand on the Pope’s explanation that his lecture "in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect", not the superficial getting along that today passes for interfaith dialogue.

Why the Pope is Right

2006-09-15T09:15:00.000-04:00

Jews, Buddhists and Christians in the U.S. whether Catholic, Protestants or Eastern, we live in a pluralistic and free society. We live and accept the right of everyone to practice the religion of their choice regardless of our thoughts and feelings about other religions.

Recent comments made by Pope Benedict XVI, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" challenged the very historical foundations of Islam. The comments were not his, though. He was quoting an ancient text during an academic lecture titled “Faith, reason and the university.”

Muslims are offended. Or more accurately some Muslims are offended. Which Muslims? A spokeswoman for the Pakistani Parliament, which issued a condemnation of the Pope words and demands an apology, that's one. Many other Muslim "representatives" have also expressed outrage at the comments by Benedict XVI. And experience should tell us that those who went on a worldwide killing and rioting campaign about some cartoons are also offended.

The point the Pope made is that use of violence in the name of God is irrational. And yet this so-called Muslim leaders show the Pope right. Instead of reacting intellectually to the challenge, as giving a reason for the truth of their faith, they react irrationally. Multiculturalists in the West are reacting the same way. The Pope is insensitive they say.

Out of civil tolerance and education we have come to accept Islam as a religion, and indeed it meets all the sociological requirements that define it as such. But from the theological point of view of Christianity, Muhammad is a false prophet, period. And the religion that came from his religious experience has been at odds with the roots it claims to come from, Judaism and Christianity, from the very beginning. And yes, there were historical periods in which members of Judaism and Christianity have been less than exemplary. But nowhere in the sacred scriptures of these two ancient religions are there calls to violence in the name of God for the purpose of gaining adherents.

Christians the world over are killed by fundamentalist Muslims in the name of their religion. The whole world is the stage of violence and terrorism in the name of Islam. Women are oppressed around the planet in the name of Muhammad. As we write Sunni Muslims blow into pieces tens of innocent Iraqi citizens. And where is a world conference of Muslim religious leaders condemning these acts?

But what has people up in arms, Muslims as well as multiculturalists is that the Pope has said more than that. In reality he has said what many have wanted to say and dare not. That many of us who have taken advantage of our freedom and pluralism to study Islam have come to the conclusion that Islam, as practiced by radical fundamentalism is incompatible with democracy and modern civilization. It is up to Muslims around the world to prove we are wrong.

The Dangereous Guardians of His-story

2006-09-08T21:47:00.000-04:00

This is not what I wanted to comment on this week because I hate party politics and try to stay away from it but this is beyond the pale to an alarming point. That a U.S. Senator and cohorts will use the power of his office and of Congress to threaten and then to ask of a private television network that a show be pulled out simply because it is politically incorrect should be alarming to all regardless of political affiliation. Sen. Reid and those who signed the threatening letter to ABC over the showing of the docudrama "Path to 9/11" should be severely censured.

Since the media fabricated CIA leak scandal has plumetted into oblivion the media seems to be walking around brainless. Acting more like Fidel Castro than a Fullbright Scholar, President Clinton, has unleashed the full force of his legacy troopers against ABC. The Democratic Party apparently has a Ministry of Culture and Propaganda, headed by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and assisted by Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Byron Dorgan, and it has sent a threatening letter to ABC which intimates that their license could be in jeopardy once their hope for and almost guaranteed return to power takes place.

Just about every apparatchik of the Stalinist establishment has come out en masse after receiving marching orders from what now appears to be a Democrat Caudillo protecting a legacy which should stand on its own. That legacy shouldn't be in instant danger of being brought down by a little part of that history.

But the real scandal is the scandal of the silence of the media nomenklatura and the Hollywoodgentsia before the onslaught of censorship by the Democratic Party machinery against a little docudrama about 9/11 by ABC. Apparently it threatens the already obviously flimsy Clinton legacy. No one in the media or in the artistic community has come out in the defense of the writer, or ABC or freedom of speech.

No one in the media has come out in defense of one of their colleagues. A political party uses the power of Congress to ask a network to "pull out", as Sen. Reid has said "a work of fiction" and nobody in the liberal writer's community says anything? If it is just "a work of fiction", why worry? Is Sen. Reid saying that only works of fiction that he agrees with politically should be aired?

What is truly amazing is that Sen. Reid, Sen. Schumer and the rest admit that they haven't even seen the show! And those that have, admitted they only saw the first part. Even for a former Democrat like me - I'm independent now - it is hard to recognize the Democratic Party of today. Even the most timid liberal should be alarmed at the attempt not only of censorship but of out right intimidation of a private business in the exercise of freedom of speech.

The Moral Imperative: What now, more diplomacy?

2006-08-23T12:00:00.000-04:00

Diplomacy has so far failed with Iran. Iran has told the world and diplomacy "go take a hike". Many among us believe that diplomacy is some sort of enchanting formula that only if performed by the right wizard with all its proper intonations and incantations it will by its virtual magic produce results turning frogs into princes. Some of us believe that diplomacy has its limits.

Well, diplomacy has shown its limits and all the diplomatic sorcerers have not been able to transform Iran into a prince among nations. Former presidents and presidential candidates swear that they could have done better by bringing together our "allies". Yet all the king's horses and all the king's men of diplomacy and "our allies" have not been able to persuade Iran from pursuing military nuclear power and to stop making statements which are a threat to world peace.

Now we are looking down the same road with Iran that we looked at with Saddam, years of resolutions, years of non-compliance and years of threats. Now the world again holds its breath waiting to see if the same road leads to the same or a different place. A great amount of trust and expectation is placed on the UN. Will the UN function as expected, as a problem solving and war avoidance device?

Expectations are also placed on the U.S. in light of the fact that failure by the UN left the U.S no choice. Now we know the U.N. was incapable of fulfilling its mission for being involved in corruption with the Saddam regime up to its highest levels and the Security Council. In this sense, isn't the present US intervention in Iraq more a failure of the UN that an imperial design of the US?

Now, in light of the fact that most civilian deaths in Iraq by acts of terror are being perpetrated and claimed by al-Qaeda as approved by Bin Laden, and in light of the fact that the elections, for which so many people as never seen before in recent history, let alone in the Middle East, risked life and limb, and in light of the fact that together with the constitutional process the government has received international recognition from the UN, isn't the U.S. fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq? And shouldn't human rights, civil rights and peace loving people support the legitimate and internationally recognized aspirations of the Iraqi people at this moment in time? What is the moral imperative today?

In light of the fact that we were told by "pacifists", "patriotic dissidents", during the Nicaraguan civil war that not to support the Sandinistas was equivalent to supporting the Contras, and that neutrality was not an option, using that same logic, isn't the anti-war movement supporting and lending material and moral support to al-Qaeda by not standing with the Iraqi people and demanding that the international community does the same at this moment in time?

From the stand point of ethics and foreign policy and in light of the fact that international interventionist forces of reaction and totalitarianism are impeding the will of the Iraqi people as expressed through internationally recognized suffrage, what is the moral imperative today?

Should we have supported the sovereignty of the people of Czechoslovakia, or Hitler's claim to the Sudetenland? Whether one considers U.S. motives as imperialist or not, should we support the Iraqi people and demand that the international community, and the U.N. specially, does the same, specially after their role in bankrolling the dictatorship of Saddam, or should we now withdraw and remain "neutral"?

During the Nicaraguan civil war some sectors of American public opinion were of the belief that to criticize the Sandinistas in any form was equivalent to, as someone told me then, "play into the hand of Reagan." In the meantime, the misguided policies of the Sandinistas led to forced relocations of peasants and Mezquito Indians which in turn backfired into filling the ranks of the Contras.

Those same sectors, which were more anti-Reagan than pro-Nicaraguan people, believed that the Sandinistas represented the will of the people, politically or ignorantly overlooking the various factions within the Sandinistas themselves which included Maoists, Trotskyites, etc. After a fact-finding mission to Nicaragua I wrote a letter to the White House saying that the US and the UN should call the bluff of the Sandinistas to internationally supervised elections. When elections took place the Sandinistas were overthrown by a landslide, and eventual investigations demonstrated how the top leadership had appropriated for personal use the the estates of the former oligarchs.

Those same sectors who are anti-war today, were demanding military intervention in Nicaragua for the removal of Somoza, and would demand the use of military force today if a right wing dictatorship in Central America was committing the same atrocities that Saddam committed in Iraq, or that fundamentalist Islam wants to impose from Iran.

Is the anti-war movement more anti-Bush than pro-Iraqi people and its democratically manifested will? Is it just more anti-war than pro-peace? Those same sectors which declared and demanded neutrality and opposed all aid to England during the early days of WWII, became belligerent and pro-war once it received directives from the Comintern after Hitler broke pact with Stalin.

The call at this very moment may not be a call to the use of force necessarily, and diplomacy needs to run its full course. But those who think diplomacy is a magic wand need to start considering that the world is not a Woodstock festival. The other side of diplomacy is "the extension of politics by other means." What is the moral imperative today? Is it based on a choice between numbers, between how many will die now and how many will have to die later? At the moment we risk confusing diplomacy with appeasement and giving those who threaten world peace a chance to arm that otherwise would be minimized by preemptive action.

These are some of the questions and some of the social and political nuances that need to be honestly pondered today and that seem to frame the debate of whether or not the democratic forces of the Middle East deserve support, and about what to do with the loud threats coming from Iran.

Are we in World War III or World War IV?

2006-08-17T14:51:00.000-04:00

If you follow the commentaries by the pundits you will hear a discrepancy about how to locate our present moment in history. Are we in World War III or in World War IV? Historians will no doubt do that eventually. But some commentators and politicians say we are in the middle of World War III, others say it is World War IV since World War III was the Cold War.

We are definitely involved in conflicts all over the world. But who is "we"? If "we" is the US then, yes, we are definitely involved in a worldwide struggle since US enemies are in every part of the world. But is it a world war? Are we there yet?

The Cold War was precisely named because it was not an actual physical confrontation between the parties involved but a long, mostly ideological struggle with a worldwide geographic distribution of small proxy wars, or battles. There were mainly two antagonists in that struggle, the United States and the USSR (China posed only a limited and regional military threat at the time). The rest of the world lined up on either side of the spheres of influence of those two superpowers. The Cold War was a metaphor not a real war.

We are not in a world war yet, although it surely feels that way. While exaggerations serve to illustrate at times or to agitate and mobilize, there's always a problem with them, in the end they only help in distorting reality. The best analogy that comes to mind for our present moment is the period of world tension between 1933 and 1939 (although I believe WWII actually began with the Spanish Civil War, I will set that aside). It was during that period that a world threat to international peace grew in the form two strong forces. One was Nazism in Europe, and the other, nationalist imperialism in the Pacific Rim.

During that time the world sought various accommodations and diplomatic solutions to the demands imposed on international stability by these two forces. But diplomatic solutions continued to fail as either of these two forces committed violation after violation of international law and as their governments became more totalitarian against their own peoples. Countries were invaded, atrocities committed, repression and violations of human rights became entrenched as these forces became stronger militarily. A buffer zone imposed by the Treaty of Versailles in the Rhineland, similar in effect to what is proposed today for Lebanon, was reoccupied by Germany to the impotence of the enforcers. Other occupations in the Pacific and Europe took place. Between failed diplomacy and acquiescence war finally came.

So as the debate rages among politicians and pundits if someone asks "Are we there yet?” regarding WWIII I would have to respond, "No, but almost there!" Stay tuned.

Where is Raúl?

2006-08-03T15:45:00.000-04:00

Let me share my suspicions about what may be going on in Cuba. For that we must keep in mind Nicolae Ceausescu of former Romania.

It may very well be that Fidel is orchestrating everything backstage as a trial to see the level of acceptance that his coronation of Raúl would have among the military and the top command of the Communist Party. Raúl may be a strong man but that precisely doesn't guarantee popularity. Many in the Cuban military do not forget his role in the kangaroo trial and execution of Gen. Ochoa and Tony de la Guardia both of whom were very popular among the armed forces. They were both purged for their popularity and perhaps as equally important for the fact that they had actual combat experience, had tasted some level of independence abroad and where not members of the original “barbudos”. Stalin did the same with returning veterans of the Spanish Civil War.

All is not honky-dory in the Cuban army, and not all of them are enamored with the state of affairs in Cuba. It is no coincidence that the most serious and responsible organizations and voices of exiles in the US, including the Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez, a Cuban, have called for elements in the military to take advantage of the situation and make a move toward a civic-military government. Would these organizations and a member of the cabinet be making that kind of appeal, one if they didn't think this could be accomplished without bloodshed and civil war, and two, without the knowledge of support from the White House?

A few months ago Raul gave a speech before the armed forces which was essentially Fidel's testament of succession. During that speech Raúl showed up with a bulletproof vest and a very close coterie of his praetorian guard. But perhaps the strongest signal to the armed forces that he meant business was the fact that he showed up also wearing Tony de la Guardia's specially made bulletproof hat. Also recently the Castro brothers have called back from retirement and to active duty in positions of government men in their seventies and eighties, cadres from the old days.

Not all is honky-dory with the Cuban people either. Yes, most Cubans have only known Fidel and they do have a paternalistic and symbolic attachment to the man. But that doesn't mean they are not ready for change. Remember the scenes of mass rallies of flag waving Rumanians during the last days of Nicolae Ceausescu? Since the forced rallies and marches in support of Elián Gonzalez one thing has been noticeable in every mass gathering since, the sea of small Cuban flags covering the faces of the people. But if you have the chance to see between those small flags what you will notice is the largest gathering of bored and fatigued looking people you have ever seen. One day all of a sudden and to the surprise of the Western media the people in the mass rallies of Rumania started booing, jeering and finally running off the stage their beloved leader. Some other day they shot him together with his wife.

Today as we monitored Cuban papers and radio stations what is predominant is a long list of statements of support for Fidel and his decision coming from the various "popular" and government organizations, but no calls or praises for Raul. Which raises the question, where is Raúl? If he is in charge why is he not in front of the cameras assuring the country of its normality?

Together with news on emphasis on the unity of the Cuban people behind Fidel's decision there are also calls to stay very vigilant against plots coming from the US and the "Miami mafia". Cuban relatives of exiles are reporting to their counterparts in Florida of quiet military mobilizations seen in Havana and elsewhere in the island.

Whether Fidel is alive or not and whether this is all true or not, the fact of Raúl's lack of show is stunning, not to mention the lack of a press conference by Fidel’s doctors or a recorded message, etc. We wouldn't be surprised whether Fidel is testing the waters or not, that this event will serve as an occasion to see who is really loyal followed by a purge. We wouldn't be surprised either if in a couple of days or weeks an announcement is made of the discovery of a plot and members of the military are arrested and accused of plotting with the exile community and "los imperialistas yanquis". The total clampdown and assured succession of Raúl would have been accomplished.

Raúl on the other hand could liberalize Cuban economy, provided he survives the transition, as he had said regarding relations with the US that a relationship "of mutual respect" could be possible. Mutual respect for Raúl of course means no interference from Washington or at least a wink and a nod. As controller of the armed forces under whose charge the tourism industry operates the economic future of Raúl is guaranteed. But in the socialist paradise of egalitarian utopias it is Raúl who created and runs the economic apartheid between the Cubans and the lives of splendor that tourists experience.

The real surprise coming from a Stalinist regime of lies and totalitarianism would be that Fidel is really recovering from surgery as they have stated.

The Deplorable Lacking Performance of Koffi Annan

2006-07-18T15:57:00.000-04:00

“While Hezbollah’s actions are deplorable and Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive use of force is to be condemned,” said today the Secretary General of the UN. But to call the actions of Hezbollah "deplorable" while actually condemning Israel's right to defend itself betrays not only how little Mr. Annan knows about the amount of force Israel is capable of using if it needs to but also his naive hopes or his sympathies and the lack of neutrality expected from his position. While the media largely ignores the Oil for Food corruption scandal of his administration there are also other factors largely ignored by the media which have changed the context of the "Israeli-Palestinian” conflict.

We need to remember that among the papers captured during the raid that killed al-Zarqawi there was an analysis acknowledging their loosing battle for "hearts and minds" in Iraq; not only having an impossible time recruiting Iraqis but international fighters as well. It also stated the need to create an international crisis to divert American attention from Iraq and create a situation that would create victim sympathies for Muslims in order to increase international recruitment for Iraq.

So far part of this strategy seems to be working if you take a look at the creation of victims in the American and European media in whose mind Hezbollah and their support structure in Lebanon are the innocent victim; never mind that except for Iran and Syria most Middle East governments, the Arab League and the G8 have condemned and blamed Hezbollah for the current situation.

Israel should call their bluff and not exercise restraint but hit harder even at the risk of playing into the hands of creating recruiting sympathies for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The more they get to recruit the more will be killed. When the US counter-attacked Germany and Japan it help generate more SS recruits and more Kamikaze recruits. The more they recruited the more they died and the less they had, ergo, we won. The only restraint Israel needs to exercise is the restraint of the wise: hit hard enough to destroy Hezbollah and hit soft enough not to give them a propaganda victory. But in the end it should defeat, not appease an enemy that has sworn its destruction.

We should work for peace, we all want peace. But the international Islamic Fundamentalist movement doesn't want peace. They want submission, that is, our submission. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad have clearly demonstrated once and for all that they are no longer just a local Palestinian patriotic movement but active assets and part of the worldwide Islamic Fundamentalist movement the capital of which is Iran. It is becoming more and more obvious that the Bush administration position is correct in terms of strategy and tactics and geopolitical analysis. A democratic and pluralistic Iraq is a wedge, a break in the Fundamentalist Islamic bridge that this movement wants to build all the way from Iran through Syria to Morocco. That bridge would be a real threat to the West by controlling oil as a weapon and by becoming allied with China, no friend of Islam but a latent enemy of Islam's enemy. This is the context that has changed.

Regardless of the sophomoric and "strawman" argument of the fanatic Bush-hating camp mantra "ad absurdum" that the US was wrong in attacking Iraq when Iraq did not attack the US, a similar position was faced by the FDR administration when it had to decide to go strategically after Germany first, which did not attack the US, instead of Japan which did. Germany was not only a friend of the enemy that did attack the US, but Germany was also an economic and industrial power house which not only threatened the total take over of Europe including England but also, and perhaps more importantly, the Caucasus and the Middle East (ME). Germany was to the battle against Fascism in the European Theater situation what Iran is to the ME Theater in the war against Islamic Fascism, and England was to the European region what Israel is now to the ME.

If Israel and Europe fall to the Islamic Jihadist-Fascist movement they will have total control of the ME, and after that they will be able to dictate to the rest of the Muslim world in the Pacific Rim, etc. The US should play their own game of divide and conquer based on their own dictum, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This is the time for the US to strengthen military and political alliances with moderate Muslim sectors in the Middle East and to emphasize on them the importance of democratic reforms while at the same time doing everything they can to eliminate the material and social sources for the recruitment of terrorists.

The obvious silence and lack of unity in condemning Israel coming from the rest of the ME is indicative of the fear some countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have of a Fundamentalist takeover of the ME by Iran. The US should exploit this reality. The new wars by proxy, Iran using militias and China using Muslim countries while standing by is just like Russia did during WWII and the Cold War. The only way the US won the “battles by proxy” of the Cold War was by urging and supporting democratic change around the world. Ironically, the only place the US failed, Vietnam, turned out to be a failure that served as encouragement for the USSR to continue attempting a war by proxy in Latin America and Africa.

Only in the minds of the BBC and the "Vietnamized" American generation of journalists and politicians there is another road to take. For them the worldwide Islamic Jihadist-Fascist movement doesn't really exist, 9/11 was an exception and the only thing that needs to be done is to retreat from Iraq just like from Vietnam and Sudan, which will please and appease the Jihadist-Fascists. But this is a movement that uses its own civilians as martyrs with a guarantee of heaven as price for their lives which then they can use for propaganda.

As said elsewhere, does anybody think that the international Islamic Fundamentalist movement is about the rights of workers, gay rights, women's rights, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, academic freedom, freedom of religion? As critical as we have been of Israel-US relations and of Israeli policies, one needs to ask, who in the Middle East better represents those values, Israel or the Islamic Fundamentalists?

The moral responsibility for civilian deaths in Lebanon lies on the enemies of Israel when they use civilian locations such as apartment buildings to hide their human and military assets. Japan did the same placing a home based war industry in civilian neighborhoods and thus their civilian population paid the price of becoming military targets. The US and Israel are in the forefront of this worldwide battle against Islamic Jihadist-Fascism. The rest of the world, Europe, the UN and the narrow-minded and blind adolescent partisan haters in the US are still sleeping. Mr. Annan, that is the deplorable situation.