Thursday, February 4, 2010
"Despues de Todo" (After All). Los Van Van.
A long long time ago, over 50 years ago, the tiny island nation of Cuba threw out the U.S., the mafia, the nightclubs, the casinos, and the upper-crust Cubans who lived off of those vices, and decided they would form a new government. Many of the upper-class from Cuba who were on the Mafia payroll, or who profited from the misery of their own people, fled Cuba to a life of struggle on the beaches of Miami.
The right-wing in this country just loves those Cubans who came here, and every year taxpayer money is given to phony front-groups in Florida who claim to be anti-[Fidel] Castro. Millions and millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have gone right into the pockets of these anti-Castro Cubans in Miami, who have used that money to buy up much of Miami and get rich. But they still bitch and moan about how they really want to go back to Cuba. Yeah, sure they do.
I really hate these gusanos (worms) from Cuba. I'm so sick of listening to the whining. And I'm really sick of seeing my government continue such ridiculous policies towards the people of Cuba. We spent decades trying to assassinate Fidal Castro, supported an attempted invasion, embargos, economic assaults, lies, propaganda. Why did we do that? Maybe because that small poor nation thumbed their noses at the big bad U.S.
Among the absurd policies the U.S. has towards Cuba are the travel restrictions (U.S. citizens for the most part can't go to Cuba except under limited circumstances). Also restrictions on cultural exchanges. This is the part that is so insane to me. We send assassins there, but we are afraid to allow their baseball players to come here, or ours to go there. They love baseball in Cuba. We won't let their musicians come. There was is a project by some musician to just try to get new instruments, like pianos into Cuba, because U.S. has policies try to blockade and embargo that poor country. I'm really sick of it.
"AP - MIAMI – One by one, musicians from the renowned Cuban salsa band Los Van Van made their way past immigration officials at Miami International Airport and into the bright lights and cameras of the Spanish-language media."
"One reporter offered them Cuban pastries. Another asked what it meant to play in Miami. Maintenance workers took pictures with their cell phones. One said she had grown up dancing to Los Van Van. Another denounced them as tools of the island's communist government. When they last played Miami 10 years ago, a mini-riot broke out between fans and protesters." ....
"Los Van Van are the latest in a string of Cuban bands to visit the United States under the Obama administration — and the most controversial. Many characterize the group as having a cozy relationship with the Castro government, making them an emblem for conservative exiles of a five-decade long dictatorship." ...
"Cuban-American radio stations have avoided playing music from groups from the island in the past, but that has begun to change. About six months ago, Al Fuentes, programming director for Spanish Broadcasting Systems in Miami, began playing songs from Los Van Van and other Cuban artists on his morning show. He said the decision grew from demand for the music — and his own curiosity about music made after 1959."
The article says that in 1999, Los Van Van performed in Miami and were met by 4000 protesting and rioting Cuban-Americans. When they performed last Sunday, there were only a handful of protesters. Kind of like the Daughters of the Confederacy: old history embraced by the old folks, but the younger people would prefer getting on with their lives.
This whole anti-Castro fanaticism has such a bad influence on our country. Politicians in the Maimi area are forced to denounce Castro and fan the flames in order to get votes. Most Cuban-Americans are right-wing Republicans, although that too has begun to change.
Cuba has wonderful music. And food. And they are our neighbor. We need to end these old cold-war policies and completely open up free travel and trade with Cuba. Most of the original gusanos have died off, although some of their children continue to live off of taxpayer money given to their phony organizations. I say end it now.
Completely normalize relations between our countries. Our entire foreign policy in relation to Cuba is nothing more than pandering to a few million immigrants with a desire to live off of taxpayer money, and to spread the disease of their resentment and hatred through the whole country. I think most Cuban-Americans want it to end. And as an Irish-American, I don't want any part of their old history. Let's normalize relations and let our people get to know each other. Thanks to Michael for sending me this story.
Why Are We Still In Afghanistan?
Many of us have been asking what seems like an obvious question: Why is the U.S. still in Afghanistan?
Poor Afghanistan. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, and the band of mercenaries, war profiteers and felons who surrounded him, illegally waged secret wars around the world, including one in Afghanistan. In order to "defeat" the Soviet Union, Reagan decided to arm and train fanatical anti-western radical Muslim groups who later developed into al Queda. Thanks again, Ronnie. War in that poor country left little but rubble for the people. In that environment of lawlessness and extreme poverty, with the armed support from the Reagan government, the fanatical religious group the Taliban eventually arose and took control.
You recall that the original justification for invading that country was the claim that the mostly-Saudi men who hijacked four airplanes on 9/11/01 had trained to do the hijacking in the country of Afghanistan. I do not recall any of the hijackers were actually citizens of Afghanistan, but just that they had stayed there, hung out with Osama bin Laden, got training about how to kill people.
As Rupert Murdoch's Whorehouse would say: "They attacked us."
The original justification was that we needed to bomb the rubble that is Afghanistan so al Queda would leave. We originally started bombing in October of 2001, over 8 years ago, and most of the available information suggests bin Laden left right around that same time. He escaped the country and went elsewhere, and took his gang with him. Maybe to Pakistan.
So why are we still in Afghanistan? There are 100,000 foreign troops waging war on the people of that country today, more than eight years after we invaded. President Obama is getting ready to send another 40,000 troops. And that doesn't include the "private contractors" like Blackwater/Xe, mercenaries and hired assassins.
Why are we still waging war against that poor country? The story keeps changing. I read somewhere that it was estimated there were around 19 members of al Queda in Afghanistan. So we need the Army and the Marines, billions of dollars of our money blown up in weapons of mass destruction we use against those poor people, because there are a handful of people who might be al Queda? That doesn't make any sense.
Then we heard that we had to stay there to defeat the "insurgents." Not al Queda anymore, but "the insurgents." Who is that? Anybody who opposes the U.S. occupying the country. Wouldn't that pretty much be everyone, except the handful of oil corporation executives we had placed in charge so they can sign contracts giving away the resources of that country?
Of course everyone knows that the oil corporations want to build pipelines across Afghanistan, to carry gas. Is that why we're there?
We got a new piece of the puzzle yesterday. According to Pinochio Karzai, Afghanistan has mineral and petrolum reserves with an estimated value of One Trillion dollars.
It also turns out that for several years now (while we refused to leave the country, despite no apparent reason for being there) the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been in that country conducting surveys for minerals and petroleum reserves, and will issue an official report in the near future. The survey that our government has been conducting has so far cost the U.S. taxpayers $17 million. And it's all been done in secret.
So that's why we're there: it isn't just rubble. There may be something of value in the ground. And if there is, the U.S. wants to be there so we can steal it. Well, not "we." The U.S. corporations can steal it. The rest of us are too busy standing in the unemployment lines to go steal other people's assets.
"KABUL (AFP) – Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest countries, is sitting on mineral and petroleum reserves worth an estimated one trillion dollars, President Hamid Karzai said Sunday. " ....
"He based his assertion, he said, on a survey being carried out by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), due to be completed in 'a couple of months'".
"The USGS, the US government's scientific agency, has been working on the 17-million dollar survey for a number of years, Karzai said. " ....
"More than 100,000 foreign troops under US and NATO command are battling the insurgents, with another 40,000 due for deployment this year. "
China has reportedly signed a contract to extract copper from a location in Afghanistan, one of the biggest copper sites in the world, and is now negotiating for a contract to mine iron. Maybe this is how the U.S. is holding off China from foreclosing on our debt: invading other countries and giving some of their resources to China.
Have you ever seen a TV commercial with black-op helicopters and drones and men in fatigues with big guns and grenades dropping from the sky, patriotic music playing in the background, and a voice-over saying: "Support the brave and heroic men and women of the United States Geologic Survey. Mapping resources throughout the world."
Poor Afghanistan. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, and the band of mercenaries, war profiteers and felons who surrounded him, illegally waged secret wars around the world, including one in Afghanistan. In order to "defeat" the Soviet Union, Reagan decided to arm and train fanatical anti-western radical Muslim groups who later developed into al Queda. Thanks again, Ronnie. War in that poor country left little but rubble for the people. In that environment of lawlessness and extreme poverty, with the armed support from the Reagan government, the fanatical religious group the Taliban eventually arose and took control.
You recall that the original justification for invading that country was the claim that the mostly-Saudi men who hijacked four airplanes on 9/11/01 had trained to do the hijacking in the country of Afghanistan. I do not recall any of the hijackers were actually citizens of Afghanistan, but just that they had stayed there, hung out with Osama bin Laden, got training about how to kill people.
As Rupert Murdoch's Whorehouse would say: "They attacked us."
The original justification was that we needed to bomb the rubble that is Afghanistan so al Queda would leave. We originally started bombing in October of 2001, over 8 years ago, and most of the available information suggests bin Laden left right around that same time. He escaped the country and went elsewhere, and took his gang with him. Maybe to Pakistan.
So why are we still in Afghanistan? There are 100,000 foreign troops waging war on the people of that country today, more than eight years after we invaded. President Obama is getting ready to send another 40,000 troops. And that doesn't include the "private contractors" like Blackwater/Xe, mercenaries and hired assassins.
Why are we still waging war against that poor country? The story keeps changing. I read somewhere that it was estimated there were around 19 members of al Queda in Afghanistan. So we need the Army and the Marines, billions of dollars of our money blown up in weapons of mass destruction we use against those poor people, because there are a handful of people who might be al Queda? That doesn't make any sense.
Then we heard that we had to stay there to defeat the "insurgents." Not al Queda anymore, but "the insurgents." Who is that? Anybody who opposes the U.S. occupying the country. Wouldn't that pretty much be everyone, except the handful of oil corporation executives we had placed in charge so they can sign contracts giving away the resources of that country?
Of course everyone knows that the oil corporations want to build pipelines across Afghanistan, to carry gas. Is that why we're there?
We got a new piece of the puzzle yesterday. According to Pinochio Karzai, Afghanistan has mineral and petrolum reserves with an estimated value of One Trillion dollars.
It also turns out that for several years now (while we refused to leave the country, despite no apparent reason for being there) the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been in that country conducting surveys for minerals and petroleum reserves, and will issue an official report in the near future. The survey that our government has been conducting has so far cost the U.S. taxpayers $17 million. And it's all been done in secret.
So that's why we're there: it isn't just rubble. There may be something of value in the ground. And if there is, the U.S. wants to be there so we can steal it. Well, not "we." The U.S. corporations can steal it. The rest of us are too busy standing in the unemployment lines to go steal other people's assets.
"KABUL (AFP) – Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest countries, is sitting on mineral and petroleum reserves worth an estimated one trillion dollars, President Hamid Karzai said Sunday. " ....
"He based his assertion, he said, on a survey being carried out by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), due to be completed in 'a couple of months'".
"The USGS, the US government's scientific agency, has been working on the 17-million dollar survey for a number of years, Karzai said. " ....
"More than 100,000 foreign troops under US and NATO command are battling the insurgents, with another 40,000 due for deployment this year. "
China has reportedly signed a contract to extract copper from a location in Afghanistan, one of the biggest copper sites in the world, and is now negotiating for a contract to mine iron. Maybe this is how the U.S. is holding off China from foreclosing on our debt: invading other countries and giving some of their resources to China.
Have you ever seen a TV commercial with black-op helicopters and drones and men in fatigues with big guns and grenades dropping from the sky, patriotic music playing in the background, and a voice-over saying: "Support the brave and heroic men and women of the United States Geologic Survey. Mapping resources throughout the world."
Surya and Roscoe
Thanks to Marcia for sending this to me. There is nothing in the world as wonderful as a friend.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Happy Groundhog Day.
Punxsatawney Phil saw his shadow. That means we'll have six more weeks of winter. Yeah! Daylight savings starts on March 14, so winter will kind of end and the days will get longer at the same time!
Speaking of which, "Groundhog Day" is one of those movies that always makes me smile. It's a bad-mood cure anytime of year.
"Don't Ask Don't Tell": A Bad Policy Which Should Be Eliminated.
What is commonly referred to as the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy was put into place in an apparent effort to placate the top military brass's opposition to allowing gay people in the military, one the one hand, and gay civil rights groups on the other hand. Up until that point, the simple fact that a person was homosexual was sufficient grounds to exclude them from the military. That's why so many young males during the Vietnam era showed up at the draft in dresses and high heels.
But times change. And we now have no draft, although we continue to have wars. Lots of wars. Many of the people who join the military are from working class or lower class families. If they graduate high school, or if they drop out of high school, many of them have no place to go: no jobs, no money for college, no opportunity. And the military recruiters are quite predatory, often promising young people opportunity that they will never see.
But the fact is that the military does offer opportunity for some. For example, I went to law school with a few students who were long-time military and were being put through law school by the government. I know people who joined the military and went to medical and dental school in exchange for a certain number of years service in the military. These professional opportunities would otherwise have been denied to young people whose families do not have the financial ability to pay for higher education.
Even for young people who do not want to go to college or professional school, the military offers a job, a place to live, medical and dental, and training in certain fields. Of course many people choose to make a career in the military, and likely do better than they would have in the private employment sector where there is no stability.
Homosexuals were excluded from the military for a long time, and gay rights groups saw that exclusion as a denial of basic rights to one sector of society for no legitimate reason. So Bill Clinton came up with a compromise. Essentially, the military would stop asking people if they were gay, and gay people would be allowed to serve so long as they did not "tell" that they were gay. Not "telling" essentially meant keeping it a secret. If they were seen entering a gay bar, for example, even if they didn't say anything, they could be thrown out of the military and lose all their accrued rights.
The rationale for excluding gays from the military is that straight men are uncomfortable being around gay men. Straight men do not want to sleep in a room with gay men, don't want to get naked and change clothes in front of gay men, don't want to shower with gay men. Straight men fear that the gay men will harass them, or come onto them, or try to grope them, and make unwanted advances.
Straight men argue that because they are uncomfortable, and fear unwanted advances, they are potential victims, and gays (the presumed predators) should be excluded from the military. Don't Ask Don't Tell was supposed to provide some assurances to straight men that if there was a gay man in the military, he would be prohibited from making sexual advances or inappropriate comments to straight men or he would be thrown out of the military. Gays could serve in secret.
The funny thing is that straight men also have always fought to keep women out of the military (and other fields like firefighters where people live together). But in that case, straight men say that they are the presumed predators, they might attack the women, they might sneak a peek at a naked woman living next-door, they might sexually assault the women, they might make unwanted advances. And in this scenario, straight men say the potential victims (women) should be excluded from the military.
I'm thinking that in order to be consistent, maybe straight men should be excluded, and gay men and all women can do the work without worrying that they will attack or rape each other.
This argument, that straight men don't want gay men in the military, is essentially the same argument that was used to exclude black people, or confine them to separate assignments: white men don't want to sleep in the same room, eat at the same table, shower with black men.
I think these straight white men should get over themselves.
In our legal system, and in most of our civil institutions, we do not brand people as bad because of race, gender, or sexual orientation. We instead have rules and laws which say what qualifications people must have to get a job, what people must do to keep their job, and what conduct is improper and subject to discipline or termination. That's the way things should be in the military.
All people, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, should be held to the same standards. In today's world, that means generally that you should not "date" a co-worker, or ask them to date you, other than in a non-coercive and non-sexual context: would you like to go for a cup of coffee. That allows each person to consent or refuse a change in the relationship. It's really not that difficult. Or some places have rules which prohibit people in the same department from dating.
It's possible to come up with rules that would reasonable serve the legitimate interests of everyone involved. Citizens may join the military regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. All members of the military will be held to a set of rules prohibiting sexual harassment or coercion, and such other rules as are reasonably necessary to avoid undermining the cohesiveness of the department, such as prohibiting anyone from dating someone who works in the same group.
It looks like the military is finally going to phase out the Don't Ask Don't Tell policies. Good. It's about time.
But times change. And we now have no draft, although we continue to have wars. Lots of wars. Many of the people who join the military are from working class or lower class families. If they graduate high school, or if they drop out of high school, many of them have no place to go: no jobs, no money for college, no opportunity. And the military recruiters are quite predatory, often promising young people opportunity that they will never see.
But the fact is that the military does offer opportunity for some. For example, I went to law school with a few students who were long-time military and were being put through law school by the government. I know people who joined the military and went to medical and dental school in exchange for a certain number of years service in the military. These professional opportunities would otherwise have been denied to young people whose families do not have the financial ability to pay for higher education.
Even for young people who do not want to go to college or professional school, the military offers a job, a place to live, medical and dental, and training in certain fields. Of course many people choose to make a career in the military, and likely do better than they would have in the private employment sector where there is no stability.
Homosexuals were excluded from the military for a long time, and gay rights groups saw that exclusion as a denial of basic rights to one sector of society for no legitimate reason. So Bill Clinton came up with a compromise. Essentially, the military would stop asking people if they were gay, and gay people would be allowed to serve so long as they did not "tell" that they were gay. Not "telling" essentially meant keeping it a secret. If they were seen entering a gay bar, for example, even if they didn't say anything, they could be thrown out of the military and lose all their accrued rights.
The rationale for excluding gays from the military is that straight men are uncomfortable being around gay men. Straight men do not want to sleep in a room with gay men, don't want to get naked and change clothes in front of gay men, don't want to shower with gay men. Straight men fear that the gay men will harass them, or come onto them, or try to grope them, and make unwanted advances.
Straight men argue that because they are uncomfortable, and fear unwanted advances, they are potential victims, and gays (the presumed predators) should be excluded from the military. Don't Ask Don't Tell was supposed to provide some assurances to straight men that if there was a gay man in the military, he would be prohibited from making sexual advances or inappropriate comments to straight men or he would be thrown out of the military. Gays could serve in secret.
The funny thing is that straight men also have always fought to keep women out of the military (and other fields like firefighters where people live together). But in that case, straight men say that they are the presumed predators, they might attack the women, they might sneak a peek at a naked woman living next-door, they might sexually assault the women, they might make unwanted advances. And in this scenario, straight men say the potential victims (women) should be excluded from the military.
I'm thinking that in order to be consistent, maybe straight men should be excluded, and gay men and all women can do the work without worrying that they will attack or rape each other.
This argument, that straight men don't want gay men in the military, is essentially the same argument that was used to exclude black people, or confine them to separate assignments: white men don't want to sleep in the same room, eat at the same table, shower with black men.
I think these straight white men should get over themselves.
In our legal system, and in most of our civil institutions, we do not brand people as bad because of race, gender, or sexual orientation. We instead have rules and laws which say what qualifications people must have to get a job, what people must do to keep their job, and what conduct is improper and subject to discipline or termination. That's the way things should be in the military.
All people, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, should be held to the same standards. In today's world, that means generally that you should not "date" a co-worker, or ask them to date you, other than in a non-coercive and non-sexual context: would you like to go for a cup of coffee. That allows each person to consent or refuse a change in the relationship. It's really not that difficult. Or some places have rules which prohibit people in the same department from dating.
It's possible to come up with rules that would reasonable serve the legitimate interests of everyone involved. Citizens may join the military regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. All members of the military will be held to a set of rules prohibiting sexual harassment or coercion, and such other rules as are reasonably necessary to avoid undermining the cohesiveness of the department, such as prohibiting anyone from dating someone who works in the same group.
It looks like the military is finally going to phase out the Don't Ask Don't Tell policies. Good. It's about time.
Alaska to Palin: SP, Call Home.
From The Progress Report:
"Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is calling on President Obama to fire his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel for using the phrase 'f---ing retarded' in a meeting with liberal allies. Writing on Facebook, Palin said, 'Rahm's slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities -- and the people who love them -- is unacceptable, and it's heartbreaking.'"
Sarah: he was talking about you, not your kid.
P.S.: I think Rahm Emanuel is a right-wing corporatist, pro-war, Clintonista, arrogant, obnoxious, untrustworthy foul-mouthed representative of Israel, and I'll never understand why Obama picked him as chief of staff. I would love to see him go. But not because he used the word "retarded." He should go because he's a war-mongering Wall-Street loving pr*ck.
"Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is calling on President Obama to fire his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel for using the phrase 'f---ing retarded' in a meeting with liberal allies. Writing on Facebook, Palin said, 'Rahm's slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities -- and the people who love them -- is unacceptable, and it's heartbreaking.'"
Sarah: he was talking about you, not your kid.
P.S.: I think Rahm Emanuel is a right-wing corporatist, pro-war, Clintonista, arrogant, obnoxious, untrustworthy foul-mouthed representative of Israel, and I'll never understand why Obama picked him as chief of staff. I would love to see him go. But not because he used the word "retarded." He should go because he's a war-mongering Wall-Street loving pr*ck.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Women Rock: Pink.
Don't ever believe those stories about women being weak, afraid, timid. This is Pink at the Grammys. It's unbelievable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)