CROSSOVER

I will humbly suggest to Hugo Landa, director of Cubanet (one of the few "initiatives" on Cuba where the use of tax payer money seems to have a meaning) to try and create an English version of his medium. I can't define the actual outreach of this daily digital publication, but at least I see it coming every weekday and it usually covers a wide range of issues that affect the lives of the average Cuban people. Joe and Jane should definitely have access to that information. My native island simply cannot continue to be a ghetto theme nor the mere obsession of a shrinking and aging segment in  our community.

In today's issue there was an article that I found enlightening in more ways than one as well as a word that has always come across to me as euphemistic; the former was about a slave uprising in the 19th century presumably triggered by the love between Carlota and Fermina, two slave women. But it was not the usually "censored" story that surprised me since we all tend to observe history through our hindsight twenty/twenty vision, but the fact that in those days reforms were introduced in order to treat the slaves in a more "humane" way with the real objective of avoiding their push towards "abolition". 

Some claim history repeats itself; for the skeptics it is first tragedy and then comedy; in the case of Cuba I can't help noticing how we return to the 19th century when so many supporters of a new approach to our relations with the Havana Junta claim to have witnessed improvements in that tiny nation; would this be the grotesque contemporary version of the more "humane" treatment after Carlota and Fermina were butchered?. 

The latter was not any particular article or topic, but the abuse of the word "project"; thus, Diaz Canel, the would be heir apparent to the lower throne (that of the presidency of Council of State of the National Assembly; i.e. the regime's version of a president), being the post of First Secretary of the Communist Party the ONLY position of power, made a speech in which he mentions "our revolutionary project"; then as I kept reading other articles I saw the same word this time describing an opposition initiative against the regime; it suddenly dawned on me that the elite that rules the nation has long ago imposed their own semantics and that one of the first steps any opposition movement must take is to put forth a new and more affable narrative, a less dense rhetoric, a more agile semantics; we can't use words from the time of the transistor radio in the age of binary language; how can one translate celluloid into digital imagery?.

During the last two years, long before anyone imagined the Democrats could lose the White House, I have called for a revision of the so called "support to the efforts for democracy in Cuba"; actually, not to abandon the Cuban people, on the contrary, to make sure that EVERY penny we spend is aimed at easing the hardships endured by the populace and eventually broadens their horizon. I, by default, give any Cuban who opposes the current situation the benefit of the doubt. But it is time to use our money effectively and do away with the pinata that some make on our dime. While I admire and praise all those who really work for the Cuban people; as it is the case, among others, of many individuals of faith, I'm drafting a letter to the Trump administration requesting, to use his own words: a better deal, more tangible resorts for our money so that the word project ceases to be a synonym of political panhandling.

BOURGEOIS COMMUNISM

The sacred and glorious struggle of the proletariat is no longer sexy and appealing; it has lost its effect on our imagination as the relations of production shifted from the assembly line to technologically operated production and the distribution of services. The ancient temptation of a few to control the lives of their fellow human beings and accumulate the largest possible chunk of wealth and power has not in the least disappeared though. The slogans have changed, the strategy is more subtle and it basically consists in the demoralization of the west; the dismembering of our society and the establishment of a hypocritical farewell state where a handful of enlightened rulers decide where we live, what we eat, which words we must pronounce, and most importantly: what we deserve. The west must be submitted to a state of continuous chaos hinged on a confrontation between the haves and the have nots, the rich and the poor, the whites and the other groups. It all must appear as the vindication of the downtrodden masses; trouble is that behind the revolutionary rhetoric said confrontation; real or imaginary, is financed by a handful of magnates that hope to seize absolute power following a different route. They aim at the eventual elimination of the rich, except for them. They aim at eradicating privileges except for theirs. They aim at making all human beings equal, provided that they remain above such equality. In lieu of an ideology they have opted for a new normal; a constant crisis and the demonization of everything western; they plant, irrigate and grow a nagging sentiment of guilt among us; successful is shameful, white is backward, traditional is bigot, religious is obsolete. They strategically place their minions in the media, in academia and tell us tales of the best of humanity only to exacerbate the lowest instincts of the animal within us. When they have their people in power they minimize any alarms and promise us our robust institutions will withstand any attack, when the other group wins they return to mobilization and marches to allegedly save our hitherto bullet proof institutions from an imminent threat. This sordid wannabe philosophy is what I call...BOURGEOIS COMMUNISM 

I coined this term recently and many of my friends in the left cried foul without even stopping to think for a minute; the word communism struck them harder than the word bourgeois. The left flirts with communist methods of mobilization and networking but refuses to be labeled as such. Before we try to define this new phrase we must revisit the different attempts to salvage communism through the years and we may be surprised to realize that those attempts date back to the time when Antonio Gramsci (Leader of the Italian Communist Party PCI) harshly criticized sectarianism in the left and  argued that communists should build social alliances  to secure hegemonic support for social reforms. He didn't call for coalitions to govern but just for alliances in order to gain momentum and "hegemonic" support to activate the reforms they considered necessary; in other words: with more savviness and dropping the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" Gramsci proposed a smart softening of the rhetoric clearly affirming that at the end of the day the communists would piggyback on those lured by their pompous slogans and happily ever after fairy tales and then, when the time were right, thoroughly screw them; so hammer and sickle would give way to dove and olive branch but screwed the poor allies will end up being just the same. 

Gramsci used the category of cultural hegemony to explain how the bourgeoisie managed to maintain,  through culture, the values, or lack there of, and the pillars of capitalism. It is no coincidence that many western communists after him identified culture and ideology, rather than guns and sables, as the effective weapons to be used in order to do away with the old order and establish the new one. After World War II the USSR and the west enjoyed a brief honeymoon. The Yalta agreement sanctified the status quo and basically once a communist always a communist was the new rule. That doesn't mean that the Soviet intelligence service stopped for a minute its plans to undermine the west from within and use the very free world legal system to subvert the laws and create as much chaos as possible. Left on their own the western communist parties, except for occasional visits to Moscow for a few bear hugs, realized that they had to find their own ways of surviving; briefcases filled with rubles helped pay the bills but didn't buy consciences. The uprise in Budapest and the harsh Soviet response made it even more clear: the status quo would not be changed; so what was there to hope for those in the west with communist ideals? Would the Soviet way be the only path to a better future or, as at least in theory it had repeatedly been said, each country would apply the Marxist theory to the specificities of its own reality? the execution of Imre Nagy and the incarceration of thousands of Hungarians did not seem to favor the latter option.

Then, out of the blue, the tiny island of Cuba emerged as a third option. A communist government right in America's backyard. The western hemisphere became restless, the newly decolonized nations of the Third World saw a vivid example of how it was indeed possible to achieve power by violent means, for a moment the Big Bear gave a fatherly nod of approval to arms struggle, but the Ukrainian peasant who knew how to make Stalin laugh much better than how to rule a nation predictably lost control; inebriated with enthusiasm he gave  the apocalyptic bearded Cuban a few atomic missiles and put the world in the brink of nuclear war. A more collegiate regime was imposed on the Soviet people and Castro was reminded that there was a balance to respect. The Viet Nam war was a reason for unrest in the west; protests emerged in cities like Paris and Mexico City; and when it seemed that the we would all move to a more fair state of affairs Soviet tanks were sent to crush yet another attempt of salvaging communism, this time in Prague.

TO BE CONTINUED...

THE WET, THE DRY, AND THE SHAMEFUL

   


This "peaceful" transition appears to be anything but peaceful; the exiting president continues to make decisions that will impair the effectiveness of the future Commander in Chief and my friends in the left; so diligent to vent outrage even if Mr Trump kills a bee, do nothing but showing a knowingly smile. Last week Mr Obama, after a period of yet another secret negotiations with his newfound buddy, Raul Castro, (remember the hug attempt in Havana after the press conference) decided to end effective immediately the wet foot, dry foot law of 1995. I have often said publicly that our country, the United States of America, has every right to regulate who enters and who stays out. My point instead goes to the timing and the history of how we got here.

Every nation has its way of paying for its mistakes; thus, Spain recently granted citizenship to millions of Latin Americans, Italy has more flexible laws for nationals of Ethiopia, Eritrea and other countries affected by Mussolini's clownish attempt to revive the Roman Empire in World Wat Two. Native Americans, the few remaining, were granted some privileges so that the rest of us can live with ourselves. In some quarters there is even talk about reparation for African Americans. It was therefore only logical and fair that a huge mistake made by a good president (Dwight Eisenhower) i.e. forcing Fulgencio Batista out of Cuba and allowing Castro to take power and impose a brutal totalitarian regime that still keeps the island hostage, be somewhat repaired by allowing the Cuban nationals some immigration exceptions the culmination of which was the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.

It wasn't always easy; different waves of Cuban exiles underwent different legal limitations and while his detractors claim Don Jorge Mas Canosa was responsible for pressing Clinton pass the "unfair wet foot, dry foot" I see it as the best the late Cuban American leader could get. Despite its irregular and almost fate based nature, it was better than nothing; let us not forget that up until the downing of two civil aircrafts in international waters by the Cuban Air Force Mr Clinton seemed favorable to lifting the embargo and normalizing relations with the Havana regime. Be that as it may, Cubans had it much easier that any other nationality when it came to legalizing their status in the US.

On the dark side, thousands of Cuban abused the generosity of the American people and used their privileges to, in a way, enjoy the best of both worlds. A wide gap (ideological and generational) was created between those arrived decades ago and the recent wave of economic immigrants that came only to have a better life and eventually fly back to their native island as often as possible to show off their alleged success. The recalcitrant faction had to choose, the younger "exiles" had their cake and ate it too. Said difference inevitably caused friction not only between the old and the new among the Cubans, but also a growing resentment within the Latin American community that with a mixture of envy and fair frustration saw the Cubans live "la vida loca" while they had to remain in the shadows. Also, the law incentivized hundreds of thousands to risk their lives in makeshift rafts most of which wouldn't make it in a bathtub, let alone the 90 miles between Cuba and US soil. But doesn't the existence of sanctuary cities; so cool in most liberal quarters, incentivize Mexicans and other Latin Americans to cross the border illegally and risk rape and murder by the "coyotes"; why the double standard ?

If an average American, unaware of the long journey and the vicissitudes  endured by our community looks at the situation he or she is likely to agree with Obama's decision and even consider it humanitarian in some respect. Not knowing the path that led us here an imparcial human being cannot fail to applaud anything that reduces the risk of people drowning in the ocean and as Cuban Americans it is our patriotic duty to shed light on this issue; to tone down the rhetoric and to dissect the intricacies of our narrative in order to match Joe's and Jane's limited knowledge of, and interest in, the issue.

To make matters worse, the ever supportive segment of Mr Obama within the Cuban American community now pulls the excuse of Senator Rubio and Representative Curbelo previous attempts to change the Cuban Adjustment Act in light of the piñata that many Cubans had made of said law. Some even claim Trump wanted to derogate the law himself and the incumbent only made his job easier. Let's go over each point with a fine tooth comb:

1- The risk taken by so many Cubans fleeing the island in rafts is nothing our president learned about last week; it has always been there and has always been the weakest part of the law to which the Cuban Americans have held on fast in lieu of a better alternative. Eliminating the law just hours from leaving the White House is an outrageous act of cheap politicking and unscrupulous judgement that once again proves the president is closer to the regime than he is to us.

2- Senator Rubio and Congressman Curbelo, at least judging by their statements, claim to have foreseen a favorable environment in Congress to lift the embargo and kill the Act; therefore, according to their reasoning, they wanted to make sure the violations of the act and the ambiguity that have come to reign did not become the target of Congress nor jeopardize the entire Act all together. I can't speak for them, but I'm positive that even if they had succeeded in derogating the dry foot, wet foot law, there would have been an announcement and a deadline instead of this chaotic and criminally provoked stranding of Cubans in the Straits of Florida; effective immediately only underscores how evil, vindictive and petty the left can be. It wouldn't even surprise me if this degree of harshness is payback for our vote favoring Trump.

3- Whether Trump wanted to do the same and Obama beat him to it is anybody's guess. It is unlikely though that the incoming president had applied such expeditiousness to his decision.

4- I continue to firmly believe the normalization of relations with the regime is part of a geopolitical gambit dictated by the highest echelon of power in America betting on a soft landing in the neighboring island rather than a collapse of the aging regime. For decades, the rafts and the makeshift boats have been a valve to ease pressure whenever the regime perceived its system had overheated; closing this valve could trigger a crash landing. Would this be an instance when the president goes against the powers that be?

5- The younger generations of Cuban Americans must realize that regardless of its sometimes virulent and extreme positions the old guard is their only and should I say natural ally; the left uses them for electoral purposes or to advance their dark agenda on Cuba  but tosses them without hesitation once their objectives have been reached. I see a lot of praising for Obama and unfair and excessive criticism of our elderly. I'll sit and wait until some of these critics helplessly see their relatives kicked back to Cuba.

6- In an attempt to justify everything coming from Camp Obama some argue that announcing a deadline for the application of the new reality would have triggered an avalanche similar to that of the Mariel boatlift of 1980; well I would have appreciated if the same zealousness and secrecy had been used to withdraw from Iraq.

Mr Trump seems to be in for a bumpy start; partly due to his thin skin and irascible temperament, but largely because of the complex situation he will encounter since day one; last November elections rejected Obama's legacy; time will tell if history emulates the electorate.

FAREWELL TO ARMS

The president delivered a superb speech; an excellent piece of rhetoric and oratory that at times turned my eyes a bit teary. I saved the video for future references; and if one wants to remain objective there was little during these almost fifty minutes that we can disagree on in terms of the theory. Being a Republican I would advise all my fellow party affiliates to carefully study the content of Mr Obama's goodbye.

This piece should be interpreted in two different dimensions: the pure philosophical statement and the actual application of what the speech proposes. It is indeed accurate that exchange of ideas is the basis of the edifice that we call knowledge; this, however, is sadly contradicted by the lack of negotiating will shown by the president and his supporters being the nuclear option passed by Harry Reid the crown jewel of legislative bullying.

It is also true that one cannot fully understand "the other person" until one sees things from his or her perspective; but this has also been shamefully denied by the outright character assassination of anything anti Obama; the president was right when he claimed that despite gigantic steps towards racial integration a lot needs still to be done; once again the rhetoric is the right one, in actuality his eight years are the example of a wasted opportunity. With the authority of his office and his still high approval ratings Barack Hussein Obama was in a position, like no other individual on earth, not to make miracles, but to at least break the ice and initiate this famous "conversation" about race relations in America.

I can't agree more with our Commander in Chief when he says that participation in the political process is not in the least limited to mere election; I have more often than not complained about my fellow Republicans' lack of philosophical substance and absence of "activism"; which is in the main reason why we have lost academia to the left. I understand this weakness transcends partisanship and that we the people must be the protagonists of the political dynamics. To his point, the president stated that it is we the citizens and not anything else the foundations of our society; in practice once again his deeds go against his words as he is the de facto leader of the most elitist version of the Democrats we have seen in years and despite the backhanded self criticism and crocodile weeping just a few days ago they crushed the ambitions of the new blood by stubbornly keeping Nancy Pelosi as their leader in Congress.

His public conveyance of gratitude to his family was a touching moment; I can be on the opposite side of Obama's philosophical persuasion but I harbor no doubts about his devotion for his wife, his beautiful daughters and his ever loyal, ever the soldier Joe Biden, the human bond knows no limits nor is it defined by our political inclinations.

In the substance we disagree on one fundamental issue: whilst beautifully crafted, the speech tells us of a bonanza most people don't see; America is not more respected now than it was eight years ago, we haven't conjured the possibility of a nuclear Iran; we have repeatedly failed to observe the red lines that we ourselves have set. Our relations with Israel are at an all time low, and while we managed to return from "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression", we have compromised our children's future for generations to come and mortgaged our sovereignty by running into a record high debt. None of that started under his watch, but he has certainly done nothing to correct such dangerous route.  

On a personal note I felt reasonably optimistic when the president challenged all of us by saying "if you're tired of arguing with someone in the Internet; try talking to him (or her) in person" the quote is not literally accurate, but what matters is that I have this recipe as part of my life: putting people together; the human touch beyond all differences; although from a different perspective and with a different objective I fully support this statement.

An excellent speech indeed that unfortunately depicts all but the actual performance of our exiting president; to sum it up:

1- Lots of people loved America; millions hated us, but pretty much everyone feared us. After Obama's presidency the hatred shows no sign of diminishing, love for us has certainly not increased one bit and, what is most alarming: we are being frequently defied and challenged by third rate dictators and blood thirsty thugs.

2- The racial divide is now wider than 20 years ago.

3- The so-called economic recovery under his watch has triggered a $7.4 trillion (with T like tango) increase of our debt. I leave it to the experts to crunch a few numbers and define how much each "recovered" job has cost us.

4- To make matters worse; Mr Obama seems engaged in a very personal plan to make it as difficult as possible for the next president.

Speeches can be skillfully drafted, but they are useless if not based on substance. The president's goodbye was not a farewell to arms but the announcement of new and more lethal weapons to be wielded against anything and everything traditionally American. 

THE PRESIDENT ELECT, HOLLYWOOD & WE THE PEOPLE.

In March of 2015; boy it seems like it was yesterday, Univision host Rodner Figueroa was summarily fired due to his "unpleasant" remarks about Michelle Obama's appearance. I for one joined my outrage to that of thousands of people who agreed with the network's decision. But let's analyze why we felt so offended by Figueroa's remarks: he underscored an alleged similarity between the First Lady and the apes; had it been another animal, a lioness for instance, he would have probably kept his job perhaps with a slap on the wrist; but for decades putting people of African descent close to that specific animal has been one of the racist narratives that we all have come to detest. Never mind that Aerosmith's lead singer Steven Tyler does indeed bear a striking resemblance to an ape. But he's white; a comment regarding him would never be perceived as hurtful as made regarding a black person, let alone the first black First Lady.

I am not aware of the nature of Mr Figueroa's contract with Univision, but that company, in my judgement, treaded a very fine line between the First Amendment and the deference due to the espouse of our Commander in Chief; in the host's defense:

1- He did not make an accusation of any sort.

2- The tone of the remarks in question, albeit allegedly tainted by racist bias, was at worst satirical, there was nothing in them derogatory of the character and the intelligence of Mrs Obama.

Since it seems to be now au courant to copy/paste scientific definitions and usurp other people's knowledge to look cool; allow me to remind you what the first amendment states:

 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In substance: Rodner Figueroa made a bad joke that I as a black individual take very personal, but he didn't pretend to own any truths nor did he lecture us on the intricacies of politics and the perils ahead. He was fired !!!

Meryl Streep; a superb actress, receives a well deserved lifetime achievement award and unilaterally decides to make of her acceptance speech a tirade against ONE person; the president elect. To that purpose she chose probably the lowest moment of Mr Trump campaign; the alleged mocking of a disable journalist that he continues to deny to this day, but that after repeated viewing of the video in question I can't bring myself to justify. Mrs Streep is entitled as is Mr Figueroa to her sacrosanct freedom of speech. Entertainers are not compelled to opine on political issues; however, if they decide to venture into the swampy land of politics they should at least do so with a modicum of integrity. I agree with Mrs Streep and so many other voices that the current juncture is a dangerous one, that our great nation is divided and the exacerbation of such division could only endanger our stability and ruin the very fabric of this quasi utopia dream known as the United States of America.

The electoral process was low, dirty and filthy like no other, both parties underwent a deep fracture by virtue of which the establishment that calls itself leadership tried to impose its choice on the majority; they succeeded in the Democratic field, but they failed in the Republican side and that's how Donald J Trump got the nomination. I never heard any warning sign from Hollywood, I never saw Mrs Streep nor any of the now vocal critics of the president elect object as to the integrity, the lack of appeal, the arrogance, the decades old impunity of Hillary Clinton; not for one second did these "watchdogs wannabe" stop to meditate and consider that probably Mrs Clinton was a thing of the past; someone who lived and thrived under the shadow of her husband's successes but had very little of her own. The entertainment elite erected Hillary Rodham Clinton as the legitimate heir to the throne and any comment to the contrary was racist, bigot, white, red neck, ignorant and most of all deplorable. The democratic candidate owned a caterpillar that crushed anything that did not eat, drink, live and dream Hillary; then on one cold November night the crap hit the fan . All those who had remained silent for fear of the caterpillar shielded themselves behind the privacy of the booths and voted for the other guy. It felt as though Joe and Jane had written words like deplorable, narcissist, fascist, racist, ignorant and so many others on a small piece of paper, then rolled it to make a wad out of it and sling shot it as far as they could.

Mr Trump didn't win because Putin messed with our cyber security; which indeed seems to have happened, nor because Hillary's campaign manager had a lousy password. All of that may have helped in a way; but Mr Trump's victory or better put: Hillary's defeat was a result of years of bad politics, nominal economic recovery that had not in the least translated into a tangible improvement in our lives, and the insidious, perverse and unfair demonization of everything American. Meryl Streep could not help being anti American herself at least in her lexicon, when she stated: "So if you kick them all out, you'll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts. And that is not the arts,", I am proud of the contribution that immigrants like me have made to our nation, but that does not entitle anyone to be dismissive of the American heritage and traditions. 

It was another missed opportunity. Mrs Streep could have made an excellent point if she had criticized Mr Trump as well as the numerous maladies that afflict our society; she could have been critical of the lyrics that depict women like trash, the abuse of the b word, the f word. The flooding of the market with video games where  the oozing of blood defines the winner. The neglect our veterans receive as a reward for their sacrifice. The elitism that prevails within some sectors of the Democratic Party and their loss of touch with the average American.  Instead, Mrs Streep focused on the effect and not on the cause. 

Mr Figueroa made a stupid joke and lost his job; Mrs Streep pretentiously lectured us on her very personal vision of the challenges ahead, vented her personal frustration over a self inflicted defeat and some suggest she deserves a medal. 

By the way; Univision CEO's Randy Falco and the entertainment division chief paid a visit to the president elect. Did they kiss the papal ring?

WHY WE SHOULD WORRY ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN VICTORY

Another characteristic human beings share is a short attention span; no sooner do we realize the existence of a phenomenon than we turn our eyes to a new one. This is one of the reasons why nobody speaks about the crisis within the Republican Party; the euphoria caused by Trump's win has set a smoke screen around the cat fight that took place in the GOP up to a few days ago. Enemies shake hands and we all mock the democratic aging nomenclature paying little or no attention to the flagrant betrayal that a portion of the Republican establishment perpetrated against the base of the party. The word betrayal is by no means hyperbolic, instead it's an accurate account of what the Bush family, Romney, and even some Cuban American elected officials decided to do when it was obvious that Trump was the party's nominee.

Several friends with years of militancy in the party of Lincoln object that members are allowed to dissent. The perception in this case however was not a few rank and file members voting for the other candidate but that of a fracture at the highest level of the echelon by virtue of which several enlightened leaders thought they knew better; they were even prepared to allow the leaning of SCOTUS to the far left because that "crazy and unpredictable mogul" had had the temerity of eating little Jeb's lunch.

The faction that bet on the people's discontent won; but now what?. The party needs to shake off the deadwood and patiently prepare a philosophical body of goals and principles. Some may object that Republicans have never been so "academic" well, the world has changed dramatically and the other party almost got away with defacing America; activism is not a tool reserved only for the left. Bringing America back to its centered track will not only unite us as a nation but save both parties from the extremists that to a larger or lesser degree have hijacked the political scenario.