You know, one of the most hollow arguments against the embargo is that somehow U.S. foreign policy is being “held hostage” by a bunch of intransigent right-wing Cuban-Americans (i.e. us) and that the majority of Americans are against the embargo. But even if the latter were true, which it’s not according to the latest polls, that doesn’t mean anything is being “held hostage”. We don’t have a direct democracy in this country we have a representative democracy. We elect leaders to go to Washington and “make the sausage” so that we don’t have to. But every congressional district and every state has issues that are important to it. And many times these issues aren’t anywhere nearly as important to other districts and states. To get stuff done, our congressmen must negotiate with others for mutual support. It’s a give and take.
This Pablo Bachelet article from the Herald illustrates exactly how our representatives are doing the job we have elected them to do.
Rep. Albio Sires gets personal when he asks fellow lawmakers to reject efforts to ease economic sanctions against his native Cuba. ”I just tell them about my story,” says the New Jersey Democrat…
Keep the sanctions in place until the Castro government makes significant political and human-rights reforms, Sires tells his fellow Congress members.
The 56-year-old lawmaker says he has made this pitch to most of the 55-member freshman legislative class, underscoring the kind of determined lobbying by Cuban-American legislators and allies that have made them confident they can beat back critics of U.S. policy toward Cuba…
Sires is the new kid on the block, a first-time lawmaker joining more seasoned veterans of Cuba-policy battles — Miami Republican Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario and Lincoln Díaz-Balart and Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Pembroke Pines — in leading a campaign in the House to stay the course on Havana.
Mel Martinez, R-Fla., and Bob Menendez, D-N.J., are carrying the load in the Senate. Sires holds the House seat once held by Menendez…
”Opponents are doing their best to pull the heartstrings of members,” said Wasserman Schultz. While sharing those concerns, she said, “we try to explain the complexity of the issue. . . . For most of my colleagues, it requires an education.”…
Democrats have been holding up several free-trade agreements on the grounds that they don’t do enough to protect the rights of foreign workers. Yet many of those Democrats also want more trade with Cuba — an apparent contradiction alleged by Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez in a recent speech.
So this is how our foreign policy is being “held hostage”? What bugs the crap out of the castro apologists is that we have elected an effective bunch that has delivered on their campaign promises, to put the screws to the regime, again and again.
In a related note, one of these anti-embargo jerks likes to call me a hypocrite because I consider myself a libertarian or Friedmanite on economic issues and I support the embargo. Well how about this Mr. Wiseass, we lower the embargo and allow Cuba to buy from PRIVATE suppliers any non-subsidized product made in the US? That’s right they can buy all the corn and wheat and whatever other American goods they want as long as the suppliers take on the risk and forego all subsidies on their products. After all, good libertarians are against subsidies too. And they are certainly against government bail-outs of private business as well. I’m pretty sure that ADM and the other BIG AGRICULTURE firms that live off of corporate welfare would change their tune on Cuba if the issue was tied to the removal their subsidies.
Of particular interest is how South Florida liberals, like Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, are supportive of freedom for Cuba. The reason is simple: they have heard the true stories about Fidel, not from some faceless website or publication, but from flesh-and-blood neighbors, friends and co-workers. They know the deal. We may disagree with them on a number of issues, but they are with us when it comes to Cuba (for the most part, anyway).
They call be a libertarian too brother!
I hate to say it, but far too often, some self-described libertarians are just liberals who haven’t come out of the closet yet.
Wouldn’t you just love to hear someone ask Rangel, Dodd, Flake, et al, how much of their “hard earned†cash they are willing to fork over to the castro’s for the suffering Cubans. Great post Henry
Wouldn’t you just love to hear someone ask Rangel, Dodd, Flake, et al, how much of their “hard earned” cash they are willing to fork over to the castro’s for the suffering Cubans. Great post Henry.
I just wanted to make one point: although some of us are staunch Republicans, and others might be Democrats, I think it’s significant that both sides of the aisle stand together, as Cuban-Americans, on this castro issue.
Our strength comes from our unity; let’s never forget that.
Dave,
I agree with you. As the article mentions some of the most vocal opponents of the embargo are Republicans like Jeff Flake and there are Democrats on our side like Wasserman-Shultz.
And then there’s the president of course.
Dave,
I agree with you. As the article mentions some of the most vocal opponents of the embargo are Republicans like Jeff Flake and there are Democrats on our side like Wasserman-Shultz.
And then there’s the president of course.
It is remarkable how our Cuban-American congressmen and senators work together on Cuba issues regardless of party affiliation. When it come to Cuba’s freedom, there are no Democrats or Republicans among them. What a wonderful example for the nation and the body politic! Another thing for which Cuban-Americans deserve but will never get credit.
I also consider myself a libertarian, in fact I was a member of the Libertarian Party and a candidate for office at one time. I agree with your completely – if the companies want to deal with fidel, let them, but don’t allow them to come crying to the government when they lose their asses again. And don’t prop up their profits – let them take informed risks like the rest of us, and reap the rewards of good decisions and suffer the consequences of poor ones.
This is a weird post by Mr. Gomez. As always he is all over the place, supporting his argument with little evidence (one poll out of several that disagree with his point) and convenient justifications.
As I’ve stated here before, one can do their own research and find that the majority of Americans, on poll after poll, not only oppose the embargo, but also prefer re-establishing diplomatic relationships with Cuba.
Of course, Mr. Gomez cares not for these polls because in general Mr. Gomez believes that polls are irrelevant, even though polling data is accepted by virtually all social institutions as policy-making tools.
Mr. Gomez seems to prefer to nestle in the comfort of political games. It is quite clear, even to the most lay person, that US policy towards Cuba is driven by Florida politics, and political campaigning that supports the embargo as a moral position. On the other hand, if our local South Florida politicians actually went by their constituents wishes (good lord!) they wouldn’t have much support for their Cuba policy. Even the latest poll of Cuban-Americans show that support for most of US policy towards Cuba is diminishing.
For Mr.Gomez to rant about being called a hypocrite because he rejects a certain aspect of libertarian principles is to obviate from the main issue: addressing human rights concerns in Cuba.
Its clear that the embargo doesn’t do this. Rather it violates the very principles it proposes to defend, those codified in international law, such as those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other similar treaties.
What fuckface doesn’t doesn’t say is that the poll I cited is the most recent. He/she/it also doesn’t tell you that polls that he/she/it has cited also show that when the issue is explained in depth the majority of Americans support the embargo. He also thinks this is a direct democracy which was the whole point of my post. It’s quite telling that nobody else had difficulty following the logic.
This is not a direct democracy. There are many uses for polls but our lawmakers are not obliged to vote according to polls. I’m glad that fuckface mentions the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because carrying a copy of it is a crime in Cuba. I don’t care if fuckface thinks I’m a hypocrite because I pointed out his/her/its hypocrisy. Fuckface is not a libertarian but he/she/it likes to use libertarianism as a basis for ciritcism. That’s hypocrisy. I have laid out a solid case as to why the embargo should remain and the bottom line is these efforts to weaken it are doomed to failure because of two words: George Bush.
Fuckface, would you be willing to tie the removal of ALL farm and corporate subsidies to the removal of the embargo (as a good libertarian would)?
What fuckface doesn’t doesn’t say is that the poll I cited is the most recent. He/she/it also doesn’t tell you that polls that he/she/it has cited also show that when the issue is explained in depth the majority of Americans support the embargo. He also thinks this is a direct democracy which was the whole point of my post. It’s quite telling that nobody else had difficulty following the logic.
This is not a direct democracy. There are many uses for polls but our lawmakers are not obliged to vote according to polls. I’m glad that fuckface mentions the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because carrying a copy of it is a crime in Cuba. I don’t care if fuckface thinks I’m a hypocrite because I pointed out his/her/its hypocrisy. Fuckface is not a libertarian but he/she/it likes to use libertarianism as a basis for ciritcism. That’s hypocrisy. I have laid out a solid case as to why the embargo should remain and the bottom line is these efforts to weaken it are doomed to failure because of two words: George Bush.
Fuckface, would you be willing to tie the removal of ALL farm and corporate subsidies to the removal of the embargo (as a good libertarian would)?
Mr. Gomez,
I hope you will realize that a fair discussion of facts and issues leaves little room for being bothered by childish name-calling.
The issue of the poll results demands a thorough review of the question at hand. For the issue of approval or disapproval of sanctions to be “explained in depth” is a matter of debate, as the one we are having now. Thus, we should examine if such views were presented when polls showed support for the embargo. As far as I know, those views were NOT presented. If you have evidence otherwise, I would welcome it. I also have no problem citing those polls, if you wish to discuss them.
To argue that we do not live in a direct democracy is futile. Rather it hides that fact that several polls concerning several US issues (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, healthcare, education) are ignored by many politicians. Its virtually accepted by many Americans that politicians have other important interests besides those of its constituents. Thus, many other polls highlight the great lack of confidence many Americans have with the US political system.
I bring up the Universal Declaration because it is brought up here many times. While I acknowledge that this treaty is continuously violated by the Cuban government, it also has a tattered history in the US. This is a position of honesty, not hypocrisy, because I don’t close my eyes when it comes to human rights abuses of the US, as you seem to show.
You are correct, I am not a libertarian. I reject libertarianism. But, as you have commented on other posts, you accept some principles that belong to such a school of thought. Therefore, you and your ideas are subject to scrutiny and criticism along those principles. Such opportunities allow you to respond and clarify certain points, which is a responsibility that belongs to us all, not just a few.
My position on the abolishment of the US embargo towards Cuba relies on the principle of universality: to apply the very standards you expect from others to oneself, perhaps even more stringently. This idea allows individuals, even certain groups, to lead by example, not by exceptions to the rules, like US policy towards Cuba.
I hope this clarifies some misconceptions.
fuckface calls it name calling, I call it exercising my first amendment right to free speech. fuckface is now on the record that he’s not a libertarian, as if that’s a surprise. fuckface couldn’t debate his way out of wet paper bag because he’s willing to excuse the most murderous and corrupt dictatorship the western hemisphere has ever known. Good to know. I trust our readers understand that fuckface is an agent provocateur that’s just here to disrupt. Thankfully our 3,000 daily readers can see a fuckface for what he is.
fuckface calls it name calling, I call it exercising my first amendment right to free speech. fuckface is now on the record that he’s not a libertarian, as if that’s a surprise. fuckface couldn’t debate his way out of wet paper bag because he’s willing to excuse the most murderous and corrupt dictatorship the western hemisphere has ever known. Good to know. I trust our readers understand that fuckface is an agent provocateur that’s just here to disrupt. Thankfully our 3,000 daily readers can see a fuckface for what he is.
Mr. Gomez,
You obviously have a low standard for exercising your right to free speech.
If you wish to debate the subsidizing of agricultural products to Cuba, and the condition of abolishing those subsidies, I’d be more than happy to. There is ample evidence to show that your proposal shall have little support. It doesn’t take a libertarian to understand that.
A simple truism that you easily ignore is the idea that people are judged based on their personal standards. If you accept certain principles of libertarianism, then you are open to such criticism. It obviously bothers you that such arguments are leveled against your views. But, that is what free speech is about: to criticize ideas and views that we disagree with without fear.
You call this being a “provocateur”? That is close to what the Cuban government says about the dissidents.
You claim I excuse the abuses of the Cuban government, but you have no evidence for it. In reality, I reject and condemn the Cuban government along the same standards that apply to the US, which are codified under international law.
If you understand international law, and how human rights are protected by them, then you will see clearly my position.
I don’t wish to debate fuckface. Free speech is free speech. I don’t tell fuckface what to write and fuckface doesn’t tell me what to write. I don’t give a fuck about what fuckface thinks there’s ample evidence for. When fuckface gets backed into a corner fuckface changes the subject. Libertarians believe that the only monopolies that can be maintained over time are government supported or government run monopolies. And that’s what we have in Cuba, Fidel Castro, inc. But fuckface is dying for the US to do business with Fidel Castro, inc. Probably because he’s a part of Fidel Castro, Inc.
Fuckface thinks everyone should choose a philosphy and abide by it dogmatically. That’s why he finds it so hard to believe that someone might be part of a movement but still disagree with some of the ideas of the movement. It shows you how narrow minded fucface really it.
Fuckface claims I use tactics of the Cuban government but Fuckface can rest assured that I won’t come knocking on his door in New Jersey to take him to a gulag. So fuckface is once again full of shit.
Fuckface must be the goddamned spokesman for the UN because he cares about international law so much. I care about the laws of the USA. And right now the law says people like fuckface can’t do business with Cuba or go to Cuba as tourists like fuckface would love to do so he can get it on with child prostitutes.
Fuckface tries to make the debate about the US when it’s not. Cuba does not need to negotiate with the US, it needs to negotiate with its own people and resolve the problem of not having a free and fair election in over 50 years, then it should talk to the US.
Good bye fuckface.
I don’t wish to debate fuckface. Free speech is free speech. I don’t tell fuckface what to write and fuckface doesn’t tell me what to write. I don’t give a fuck about what fuckface thinks there’s ample evidence for. When fuckface gets backed into a corner fuckface changes the subject. Libertarians believe that the only monopolies that can be maintained over time are government supported or government run monopolies. And that’s what we have in Cuba, Fidel Castro, inc. But fuckface is dying for the US to do business with Fidel Castro, inc. Probably because he’s a part of Fidel Castro, Inc.
Fuckface thinks everyone should choose a philosphy and abide by it dogmatically. That’s why he finds it so hard to believe that someone might be part of a movement but still disagree with some of the ideas of the movement. It shows you how narrow minded fucface really it.
Fuckface claims I use tactics of the Cuban government but Fuckface can rest assured that I won’t come knocking on his door in New Jersey to take him to a gulag. So fuckface is once again full of shit.
Fuckface must be the goddamned spokesman for the UN because he cares about international law so much. I care about the laws of the USA. And right now the law says people like fuckface can’t do business with Cuba or go to Cuba as tourists like fuckface would love to do so he can get it on with child prostitutes.
Fuckface tries to make the debate about the US when it’s not. Cuba does not need to negotiate with the US, it needs to negotiate with its own people and resolve the problem of not having a free and fair election in over 50 years, then it should talk to the US.
Good bye fuckface.