WHERE WE STAND

      

The president’s speech was a bit long and a bit dull; I liked it; but it left me with an odd desire to hear a more elaborate prose. I would have definitely enumerated what he and his followers consider to be successes despite the all out war declared by the left, but I would have also named the outstanding challenges ahead; the imperfections and how the other side could make things easier with a little less militance. Let me be clear; those who hate him will always call him names even if he reads the Bible out loud, but sometimes you score points by lowering your guard.

He used the same hyperbolic and exaggerated spinning of statistics all politicians use; however, whether one likes him or not the numbers are self evident and while the whole thing could burst tomorrow it is impossible to deny that 2017 has been one of the best years ever for our economy. Corporate America voted for Barrack Obama but it didn’t trust the previous president; they sat on their coffers and did nothing. They purse their lips when they see Donald Trump, but they seem at least for now, willing to gradually let some cash out of their vaults.

In the substance, however, Mr Trump appeared firm and resilient; a touch too braggadocious if you will, but in sync with most of the promises he made during his campaign. To me the best part of the speech from the oratorical point of view was when he affirmed that Americans are dreamers too. And for the life of me I can’t surmise how the hell his speech writers did not apply an in crescendo rhetoric from there that led to something like: “DACA individuals dream ONLY because they arrived in the land of dreams and opportunity and we all must, together, dream of a way to help them achieve their goals” yes, extremely opportunistic and manipulative but after calling us all dreamers I believe he missed a golden opportunity to semantically milk that line further and put the Democrats on the defensive.

Probably what I see as a weakness is his strength: who knows?; after all he won being a street fighter candidate who used plain and simple words; but again, the speech underscores the divide in America; the two opposing visions for our nation and the need to move forward, which leads me to the Democratic response: a sterling silver spoon fed liberal who calls on us to welcome all those in need; I understand your golden crib renders you unable to realize what living pay check to pay check means Mr Kennedy III; but since you used a few words of Spanish in your rally (it was hardly a speech) let me enlighten you with the wisdom of my Hispanic heritage: “no hay cama pa’ tanta gente”. We have the right and the duty to choose who gets in and when and we have the right and the duty of cherry picking not on the basis of color but on the basis of how much the candidates can contribute to the success of America and how much they love our values. That’s what all countries do and those were the guidelines observed when your late grandfather was AG and your slain grand uncle was president.

Aesthetically; Mr Kennedy’s drooling mouth kept the viewers guessing whether he had been asleep during Trump’s speech, or had left an unfinished greasy burger in some plate close by. It was a turn off and I only hope it receives as much coverage as Marco Rubio's improvised "water break". Kennedy III’s diatribe was a precooked barrage of demonizing of the opponent and with his background, looming saliva trickle, and smearing attitude reminded me more of an angry kid whose lunch has been stolen than of a consummate politician trying to make an honest point.

After both speeches had been delivered I remained convinced that we are in for a bumpy ride and that where we stand right now is not a very safe juncture.

THE REAL FACE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

I predicted this would happen not because I’m smart but because it was obvious; a man ruled society allowing itself to be dissected and judged publicly? Hell no!!!; for some reason the sexual harassment issue became news and the left hawks span it a little against the incumbent; used it as a battle flag to make Hollywood look beautiful and that was it. Ms. Winfrey boosted her already world renowned brand; rich ladies wore black trying to hide their close relationship with the perpetrators and the hell with the victims; no naming them; no putting them in front of a microphone; no exposure; the aiding and abetting once again hijacked a cause from its real owners and the craziness got so out of hand that now we have calls to stop the damned thing; Ms. Bardot and Ms. Deneuve burst with understandable indignation but they went too far back.

The truth is that the culture of male domination must end; the suppression of talent to advance sexual favoritism must end. Yes there are hundreds, maybe thousands of women who use their bodies and sexual prowess to become famous, but if the environment did not favor such state of affairs they wouldn’t be successful. Despite the numerous calls to sanity and common sense the problem does exist and it should be tackled; but it should be addressed by enabling the victims and not the accomplices, by not allowing this unfortunate situation to become a political platform or a brand booster for anyone. The strategy of the status quo is clear (it was always clear to me): exacerbate a problem to such an extent that people quickly tire of it and it’s business as usual.

Ms. Streep had her moment; Ms Winfrey had her moment; they remain the undisputed champions of women’s right, but the ugly duckling from Pensacola who could not even sell her body and yet was talented will never make it and is still washing dishes in some unknown diner in the middle of nowhere; what will this anonymous woman gain after all this? Who knows her name? Will they give her another chance to prove how well she remembers her lines and how good an actress she can be? No; her talent will go unnoticed, lost in this sea of madness where a scalpel can catapult you to fame even if you can’t speak your own language and lack the basic skills to be an entertainer.

The day after Oprah performed her charade at the Golden Bubbles I reacted with outrage; I could see clearly through the fog; manipulation and taking advantage of the victims. My condemnation was unequivocal. A friend of mine argued that the fact that the occasion had been used was better than no mention at all. I strongly disagreed; then Seals spoke out and the Hollywood dictatorship was quick to silence him. The truth is that we the people can no longer feel comfortable with half measures; half truths and backhanded strategies; we must no longer stop at almost or quasi; we must go all the way and the sordid system of values under which Oprah; Streep and so many others have lived and made millions must be done away with. I’m sorry but on this one I don’t agree with Bardot and Deneuve; to claim that women have sex with producers and directors to become famous is an alarmingly simplistic approach; the problem is much more complex than that and the sex part is probably the simplest.

The system is broke and time’s up, not for those who have fared well in it, but for the victims. Those ladies wearing black are part of the problem and by no stretch of imagination can they pretend to be the solution.

GLOBES AND NO GLOVES OFF

Some people claim that Hollywood doesn’t get it; I disagree with that assessment; I’m sure they get it all right; they are just masters in deviating attention from the real issues and blaming someone else for their shortcomings and inherent weaknesses

Two or three times every year this crowd celebrates itself; they all dress their best attires and pat one another in the shoulder; they make millions poisoning our children and youths with tales of violence, revenge and sexism; they continue to cater to the narrative of a world that doesn’t exist even though when the time is right they are all too ready to remember their alleged humble origins.

Oprah’s speech at the Golden Globes was no exception; she chose the distant memory of Sidney Poitier’s award, the example of Rosa Parks and put it in a blender together with cases of sexual harassment and suppression of women’s right. The audience was ecstatic; Meryl Streep looked transfixed and triumphant; never mind the accusations of complicity aimed directly at her. It was the most hypocritical farce I have ever seen. Even worse than the charade politicians perform everyday throughout the world. Please find below a statement by one of Weinstein's accusers actress Kadian Noble: "British actress Kadian Noble said Tuesday she was head-over-heels impressed when she first met Weinstein at an event in London because he was hanging out with model Campbell and had megastar Oprah “swinging off his arm.”

In a perfect emulation of Fidel Castro Hollywood turned a serious reversal into a sounding victory; no acknowledgement of guilt, complicity; no self criticism. They acted (and act they did) as if they had been abroad for years and had come back to find that a few rotten apples had misbehaved. Disgusting!!!

Showbiz like any other environment is a closed community where everyone knows what everyone does. All these hypocrites had to know what Weinstein and so many others did. They looked the other way for decades and now give us this pathetic display of stupor and surprise. But this gang of self centered egomaniacs are not only complacent with the Weinsteins of the world, they contribute to the assiduous and tenacious deterioration of our culture with their violent unrealistic productions.

Oprah and her friends missed a “golden” opportunity of take their gloves off and look directly at reality’s ugly face. It is probably time to show these entertainers who pays for their performance and who they should, above all, serve.

PALIZA INFLIGIDA A HILLARY CLINTON (MIRADA HACIA CUBA)

Comprendo que el cubano medio está hasta las narices de política y que su objetivo fundamental es “resolver”; pero he querido abordar un tema que de seguro no les ha llegado en toda su magnitud. La aplastante derrota de Hillary Clinton en las elecciones presidenciales de hace poco más de un año.

Mis compatriotas deben saber que no deseo dármelas de adivino así que no les vendré con el cuento de que yo siempre supe que Donald Trump ganaría; el actual presidente nunca me gusto y solo ante la alternativa de que la Corte Suprema fuese dominada por jueces de izquierda o de que el pacto mafioso entre los Obama y los Clinton se consumase emiti mi voto de protesta a favor del magnate de Brooklyn; pero como la gran mayoría de los americanos daba a la señora Clinton como favorita. Lo demás es historia; Donald Trump ganó y Clinton y sus secuaces jamás aceptaron su derrota y continúan en algo que ellos llaman la resistencia.

En toda justicia debo señalarles que el modo de calcular la votación en los Estados Unidos no sigue el derrotero de la mayoría de votos sino que se basa en votos electorales; es decir: si un candidato gana un estado, los votos electorales de el estado se computan a su favor. Hay excepciones como Maine donde el método es más parecido al imperante en otros países pero la enorme mayoría de la Unión funciona bajo la premisa de que quien gana se lleva todo. El día de las elecciones se nos hizo claro que Hillary había perdido pero por cuarta vez en la historia de las elecciones americanas el presidente salió electo con el voto de los grandes electores, pero el voto popular; el conteo simple, daba ventaja enorme a la esposa del ex presidente Bill. Legalmente Trump era presidente pero nos quedaba esa espina de su impopularidad. La prensa se concentró en eso y se necesita hurgar cuidadosamente en los números para descubrir la realidad que a continuación les expondré.

Quizás ustedes no sepan que la división administrativa de nuestra gran nación tiene como base la ciudad, luego el condado, más adelante el estado y finalmente la nación. Lo que muchos llaman Miami es un Condado que comprende 35 ciudades y varias zonas “no municipalizadas”; 15 universidades y casi 3 millones de personas. Miami es solo una de las 35 ciudades junto a Miami Beach, Hialeah, Doral y otros nombres que habrán escuchado de boca de vuestros familiares que aquí viven; el Condado se llama Miami Dade.

La nación posee miles de condados de los cuales la señora gano 487 mientras que Trump se impuso en 2,626; para darles una idea El Loco obtuvo casi cinco veces y media más condados que la Bruja. Lo que se llama en cubano claro y simple: tremenda paliza. Ahora como comprender entonces los millones de votos más a favor de la candidata demócrata? Algunos dicen que fueron 2 millones otros dicen que 3. Al inicio la explicación plausible se basaba en el abismo que existe entre la elite costera que vive en California y New York y los habitantes del centro del país. Los que sudan la camisa no comparten el criterio de salón y clasista de intelectuales de pacotilla que tratan de imponernos una realidad que existe solo en sus trasnochadas y calenturientas mentes. Y con esto no defiendo determinadas actitudes y conductas del presidente sino trato de transmitirles el divorcio que existe entre algunos sectores del pueblo así como el desdén y desprecio que últimamente se ha hecho más evidente que nunca en la clase política respecto a nosotros los que pagamos sus salarios y prebendas.

Otras teorías apuntaban a conspiraciones de los demócratas para lograr que los emigrantes ilegales votaran (cosa que está prohibida a quien no sea ciudadano americano) pero si bien no dudo que hayan logrado cometer tan imperdonable fraude no creo que sea posible “colar” el voto de millones de ilegales sin hacer sonar campanas de alarma.

Por último; a causa de su infinita arrogancia la señora Clinton en lugar de retirarse a disfrutar la cobija que los millones acumulados en estos años le proporcionan continua dando lata tratando de culpar a todos por su estrepitosa derrota en lugar de admitir que ella era la peor candidata que podía haberse presentado. Cada vez más sectores del Partido Demócrata tratan de hacerle comprender de modo diplomático que su “arrastre” es nocivo para esa organización política pero la señora y sus acólitos parecen no captar el mensaje. Pero este sería tema para otra Mirada Hacia Cuba; por ahora a quien les venga con el cuento de Tía Tata de que el actual presidente obtuvo una victoria a medias proporciónenles el dato que les suministre al inicio:

Hillary Rodham Clinton 487 condados

Donald J Trump 2,626 condados es la matemática estupida o le dieron a la Vieja Dama Indigna hasta con el cubo?

EUSEBIO LEAL EL INTELECTUAL AMNÉSICO

Hace unos días leí la entrevista dada por el historiador de la ciudad de La Habana Eusebio Leal y claro que habiendo sido miembro del Politburo de la Junta de La Habana y aún ser miembro del Comité Central del único partido permitido en la isla este señor es mi enemigo; pero no me dedico a la displicente descalificación de mi oponente sino que acepto lo que pueda tener de positivo y rechazo lo nocivo.

Mi hermano Mario Adolfo Marti nos ha regalado no pocas narraciones sobre la impecable trayectoria profesional de Leal y la perseverancia y constancia derrochadas para llegar al lugar que hoy ocupa.

Vamos a ver: según Eusebio Leal en Cuba se ha producido una pérdida de valores y la educación ha sucumbido al embate de la vulgaridad; Eusebio tiene razón reconozco que hubiera podido evitar meterse contra las cuerdas en especial ante una prensa amordazada pero su planteamiento es débil, endeble, privo de sustancia y en última instancia cobarde. Eusebio sabe perfectamente que la cultura y la educación en Cuba la destrozaron los sicarios de la Junta bajo directas órdenes del Caligula Tropical y amo y señor de la finca. Recordemos nuestra infancia donde la palabra señor era una rasgo pequeño burgués: donde hablar pausado y pronunciando las consonantes era de ricos y donde la opinión pública se mofaba de los buenos modales. Leyendo a Eusebio uno podría pensar que el permaneció años fuera del país ajeno al deterioro cotidiano y sistemático de todo valor de identidad y en especial de individualidad. Las escuelas al campo y luego en el campo, las guardias obligatorias de los detestables CRD, la Caldosa bebida obligatoriamente con vecinos que quizás odiabas y en los que seguramente no confiabas.

Para colmo el historiador nos retrata un Fidel Castro inmortal que la muerte se niega a llevarse; quizás en eso lleve algo de razón porque creo que ni la muerte puede sufrir tamaño asesino megalómano y frustrado. Leal sostiene que Castro en el momento en que peligraba la supervivencia de la nación pensaba en la cultura como arma de perpetuación; eso es una vulgar mentira; lo que peligraba era el poder absoluto de la familia Castro; su juego a los soldaditos contra los americanos que fue a lo que dedicó su estéril y cruel existencia.

Leal se preocupa por la falta de recursos para reparar La Habana, pero omite la inexistencia de recursos para reparar el alma. Cuba se ha vaciado hacia afuera; es un amasijo de sensaciones y reflejos fingidos y el lo sabe perfectamente porque de tonto no posee un pelo. Con olfato innegable se ha preocupado por crearse una capa protectiva tejida a través de años de relaciones con prelados y personajes de la cultura y la política mundial.

Sin duda para un chiquillo nacido en el solar y que se ganó el reconocimiento a base de estudio y pasión por la historia este señor se nos presenta como un excelente profesional que bajo otros avatares recibiríamos con extremo orgullo en nuestros salones; es posible que sin el la capital de la isla no hubiese logrado siquiera ese mínimo de recuperación que exhibe pero a fin de cuentas Eusebio Leal Spengler no es sino un lacayo mas de la banda de asesinos que tiene como rehenes a millones de cubanos y su inquieta prosa y certero verbo no bastarán para mitigar su responsabilidad “histórica”.

TODOS MENOS EL MÍO

El problema de Cuba es que para iniciar cualquier proceso de recuperación, de cambio o de mejora se necesita un requisito fundamental: reconocer que existe un problema en toda su dimensión. Y cuando se habla de la dimensión de una tragedia como la nuestra tarde o temprano se cae en la responsabilidad de cada cual.

La condena a la familia Castro y la Junta que ocupa el poder es generalizada aunque no unánime porque aún existen muchos que evitan llamar las cosas por su nombre. Pero ese no es el obstáculo principal.

La situación se complica cuando cada cual se abroga la prerrogativa de exonerar unilateralmente a fulano o a mengano; las justificaciones van desde la ignorancia del abuso; la buena voluntad de quien lo cometió hasta el fragor del momento y el “asedio” al que en teoría “Cuba” estaba sometida en un momento determinada.

Si seguimos la lógica colectiva y cada uno de nosotros exime a dos o tres compatriotas de la ineludible responsabilidad de aquel desastre cabría preguntarse: Fidel y Raül solos lograron hacer tanto daño? 

El otro día incluso escuchaba que de no haber muerto, el psicopata de Che Guevara se hubiera convertido en una figura cercana a la imagen de Maria Teresa de Calcuta; esto dicho por un profesional serio que incluso sufrió las carceles castristas, lo que significa que el germen de los paños tibios ha calado en el imaginario nacional y se ha convertido en uno de los tantos daños antropológicos que nos aquejan.

En esta época de dilaciones y de eufemismos estamos acercándonos peligrosamente al punto en que las víctimas se harán embarazosas y los victimarios en objetos de moda. Así las cosas, mojito, Cohiba, voz baja para que me dejen entrar a la isla y cabeza siempre más baja para que no se percaten de que existimos.

Aquello es un desastre del que hay que escapar pero no es culpa mía ni de mi familia ni de mis amigos ni de quién era mi jefe en Cuba antes de marcharme porque era del Partido pero el no era como los demás; el era buena gente; un comunista honesto. Nadie culpable, todos culpables, no llevo nueve y que baile el gordo.

THE LEFT HAS LEFT THE WEST

The late 70s and the 80s were difficult but interesting years; in Italian one would say: “it was better when it was worse” because in hindsight we observe a precarious equilibrium but an equilibrium nonetheless; if we had a problem with a very aggressive element under Soviet influence we called Moscow and they would most likely take care of the issue; if the Soviets had a problem with one of those thugs that claimed to be one of us they called Washington and we would most likely take care of things. It wasn’t fair, but it was “stable”. Now there are so many different mediocre actors playing as if they were main characters and the powerful countries are more and more powerless everyday.

America was a country with two main right wing parties one of which was more to the right than the other. The left in the world; especially in Europe, was characterized by the rift between the socialists and the communists and in some cases there were social democrats, socialists and communists. Even within the communists a few enlightened politicians denounced the abuses and repression in the communist bloc. Mitterrand wrote one book after another distancing himself from “real socialism”. I remember reading his “Aquí Ahora” which I read in Spanish as prologued by his disciple Felipe Gonzalez of Spain. The book goes to great lengths to denounce Stalinism and Soviet totalitarism. Bettino Craxi, the Italian socialist leader, pushed Achile Occhetto and his communist party as hard as he could. Anti Sovietism was rampant.

Felipe Gonzalez himself became premiere of Spain and I can still remember him reading the speech in which he announced his country’s adherence to NATO; his Andalusian drawl impossible to subdue and the urge to reassure the world that the nation was undergoing a process of integration to the free world and not a relapse to the red “republic”.

I even remember a few years ago Tony Blair, a labor prime minister, putting his job on the line to support Bush. In a separate article we may discuss the globalist ambitions of some segments of the “moderate” left, but the fact is that they made it a point to position themselves far from the extreme left and the communists.

All of that has changed, probably the Soros of this world believe that the conditions are “ripe for the final insurrection of the downtrodden masses” and the subsequent subversion of our laws and institutions. The left has either succumbed to the pressure of its hardline components or taken off the mask once and for all, or a bit of both. There is an all out offensive against religion (although for now they seem to opportunistically respect the Muslim creed), family values, moral values in the broader sense of the word, and even the concept of nation. One only has to look at who has taken the leadership of the Democratic Party: a former communist (Perez) even though communists are hardly ever “former”, and a former Muslim extremist with evident anti Semitic leanings in his past; one would think that Chuck Schummer, of all people, would object, but they seem to get along just fine.

Meanwhile, what does the other side do? Other than a lot of noise and name calling, very little in the ideological front; a few conservative youths take the brunt of the loonies attack in campuses and academia around the world and we seem happy with our self commiserating statement that the left has infiltrated our society. Well, good luck with that, the civilized left is gone so no hope of a gentlemanly duel. Are we going to put up a fight or are we going to turn the other cheek; and since they have already slapped us on both face cheeks I’m afraid we will have to turn those other ones down there.