What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Obama in Cuba (1 Viewer)

Doctor Detroit said:
The policy of locking them out didn't work, this should have happened decades ago.  The more open Cuba is, the more likely it becomes a country where the people have a voice in making it something other than a isolated mess 90 miles off our coast.  We have cozy'd up to worse regimes, much worse actually. 
Click to expand...
We have, and do cozy up to worse. I still don't agree with it. Just because relativism exists doesn't mean we need embrace it. 

But your point is taken. 

 
timschochet said:
I live next to Little Saigon in Westminster- it is the closest analogy to Little Havana that we have in this country: Vietnamese refugees and their children, who came here in 1975, fleeing the Communists, mostly from Saigon, mostly once wealthy, but having lost almost all of it, and then creating a new life for themselves here and becoming great citizens. Nearly everyone of these people hate the current Vietnam government and they completely freaked out when we opened up relations with Vietnam in the 90s. I remember; I was here. There were protests, marches, some violence, thousands of letters to Congressmen and Senators. 

So why did the Little Saigon people fail, and why didn't we recognize Cuba at the same time we were recognizing Vietnam? Were the crimes of Cuba any less than those of Vietnam? No- Vietnam was actually much worse. But the reason we didn't recognize Cuba back then was pretty simple- because the Cuban population in Florida is more important to the political outcome of elections in that state than the Little Saigon people are to California. That's it, that's the entire reason. 

If the Cuban exiles has settled in Southern California, we would have recognized Csstro's Cuba 40 years ago. If the Vietnamese refugees had settled in Ohio, we might still be refusing to recognize Hanoi. 
Click to expand...
It's worth noting that Vietnam took more steps than Cuba.

We are now deploying military stockpiles in Vietnam.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/deterring-china-us-army-to-stockpile-equipment-in-cambodia-and-vietnam/

 
timschochet said:
I've done it before, in detail. I don't want to repeat it now, but I tend to be a fan of Robert Dahl:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Dahl
Click to expand...
Nice. I generally get it, and always have. It's a difference of individualism versus competing voting blocks that vote largely on common interests or identity. 

But where does Sunstein's "Nudge" fit on the spectrum of the Wikipedia page? Between rationality and manipulation?   

I still have to read Sunstein's book and theory.  

 
rockaction said:
Nice. I generally get it, and always have. It's a difference of individualism versus competing voting blocks that vote largely on common interests or identity. 

But where does Sunstein's "Nudge" fit on the spectrum of the Wikipedia page? Between rationality and manipulation?   

I still have to read Sunstein's book and theory.  
Click to expand...
I'm not as familiar as Cass's study as I should be. But my understanding is that his is a work about what he wants to see happen, (in other words, a philosophical argument) while Dahl was arguing what IS happening. 

I studied Dahl in college, along with competing theories of how things work (the power elite, technocracy, Max Weber's chaos theory- perhaps the scariest of all.) My teachers back then were careful not to assign value or preference to these theories. I did that myself. I reasoned that not only does pluralism work most of the time (not all of the time) but that it was preferable to almost any other system. Pure democracy is impossible because the public can never be educated enough to make decisions (and as MT pointed out recently in my thread, that dilemma has only gotten worse.) Therefore the competition between interested parties makes the most sense. Except that populism can destroy it. 

 
timschochet said:
I'm not as familiar as Cass's study as I should be. But my understanding is that his is a work about what he wants to see happen, (in other words, a philosophical argument) while Dahl was arguing what IS happening. 

I studied Dahl in college, along with competing theories of how things work (the power elite, technocracy, Max Weber's chaos theory- perhaps the scariest of all.) My teachers back then were careful not to assign value or preference to these theories. I did that myself. I reasoned that not only does pluralism work most of the time (not all of the time) but that it was preferable to almost any other system. Pure democracy is impossible because the public can never be educated enough to make decisions (and as MT pointed out recently in my thread, that dilemma has only gotten worse.) Therefore the competition between interested parties makes the most sense. Except that populism can destroy it. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I gathered that about the normative and the positive. Maurile was dead right in your thread the other day (I think I liked his post, actually.) Just be interesting to get back up to speed about all of this. 

 
Of all the theories I studied in college, the Power Elite theory was always the most popular. The term was coined by C. Wright Mills, and it remains the underlying theory for most progressive types. Bernie Sanders, while never stating it directly, obviously believes in it. The general idea is that a tiny percentage of Americans who own everything get to decide everything, and there is nothing to be done against their power and might.

There are several flaws in this theory. For me personally it was exposed the first time I read The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe. I'll explain that in detail at some point when I get to reviewing that novel- it's on my list. 

The least popular theory is the one that I am closest to believing is more persuasive than even pluralism: the chaos theory. Basically this theory is that the vast majority of events are out of everybody's control. Sheer luck rules most of whatever happens. Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace is a great argument for this theory: Tolstoy's Napoleon is no genius, just a lucky soldier who kept going higher and higher until his luck turned against him (for no more reason than his luck was for him). Andrei's disillusionment about Napoleon is not that of a hero who becomes evil (because he invades Russia) but that of a competent man who is actually incompetent- and the horrific thought that NOBODY is competent. This theory is easier for me to believe as I am an atheist- most religious people are probably going to reject it out of hand. 

 
timschochet said:
Of all the theories I studied in college, the Power Elite theory was always the most popular. The term was coined by C. Wright Mills, and it remains the underlying theory for most progressive types. Bernie Sanders, while never stating it directly, obviously believes in it. The general idea is that a tiny percentage of Americans who own everything get to decide everything, and there is nothing to be done against their power and might.

There are several flaws in this theory. For me personally it was exposed the first time I read The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe. I'll explain that in detail at some point when I get to reviewing that novel- it's on my list. 

The least popular theory is the one that I am closest to believing is more persuasive than even pluralism: the chaos theory. Basically this theory is that the vast majority of events are out of everybody's control. Sheer luck rules most of whatever happens. Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace is a great argument for this theory: Tolstoy's Napoleon is no genius, just a lucky soldier who kept going higher and higher until his luck turned against him (for no more reason than his luck was for him). Andrei's disillusionment about Napoleon is not that of a hero who becomes evil (because he invades Russia) but that of a competent man who is actually incompetent- and the horrific thought that NOBODY is competent. This theory is easier for me to believe as I am an atheist- most religious people are probably going to reject it out of hand. 
Click to expand...
Try Mao's theory - power is exercised at the point of a gun.

That applies to Cuba.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Try Mao's theory - power is exercised at the point of a gun.

That applies to Cuba.
Click to expand...
Well sure. In a dictatorship. But at least for the time being, we don't live in one of those. 

And anyhow, you wouldn't define modern China that way would you? Nominally, the Communist government still has ultimate control, but the real control belongs to the growing middle classes with their tremendous buying power. Eventually there's going to be a conflict between their growing demands for consumerism and an authoritarian government which relies on austerity for control. The government will lose that struggle. 

 
timschochet said:
Well sure. In a dictatorship. But at least for the time being, we don't live in one of those. 

And anyhow, you wouldn't define modern China that way would you? Nominally, the Communist government still has ultimate control, but the real control belongs to the growing middle classes with their tremendous buying power. Eventually there's going to be a conflict between their growing demands for consumerism and an authoritarian government which relies on austerity for control. The government will lose that struggle. 
Click to expand...
I really think the political theories in Cuba are more important than out. I do think the embargo was effective but it maxed out long ago.

As for China they had Tianenmen and then liberalized for survival. Cuba however drove all its opposition out or jailed and executed the rest. If you want a counter example of China see the hermit kingdom in NK or maybe Belarus. Actually the comp I have read for the Cuban repression apparatus is the DGR Stassi. Cubans I suspect are really capitalist and freedom loving at heart like Hungarians but the Castro regime is more repressive than people realize. They need our help.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Of all the theories I studied in college, the Power Elite theory was always the most popular. The term was coined by C. Wright Mills, and it remains the underlying theory for most progressive types. Bernie Sanders, while never stating it directly, obviously believes in it. The general idea is that a tiny percentage of Americans who own everything get to decide everything, and there is nothing to be done against their power and might.

There are several flaws in this theory. For me personally it was exposed the first time I read The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe. I'll explain that in detail at some point when I get to reviewing that novel- it's on my list. 

The least popular theory is the one that I am closest to believing is more persuasive than even pluralism: the chaos theory. Basically this theory is that the vast majority of events are out of everybody's control. Sheer luck rules most of whatever happens. Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace is a great argument for this theory: Tolstoy's Napoleon is no genius, just a lucky soldier who kept going higher and higher until his luck turned against him (for no more reason than his luck was for him). Andrei's disillusionment about Napoleon is not that of a hero who becomes evil (because he invades Russia) but that of a competent man who is actually incompetent- and the horrific thought that NOBODY is competent. This theory is easier for me to believe as I am an atheist- most religious people are probably going to reject it out of hand. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'd like to read this review as it flows back through pluralism. I'm not being short: That'll be an interesting take.  

 
 


Must-see TV: Cubans marvel at rare questioning of Castro


HAVANA (AP) — Cubans were glued to their televisions on Monday, many watching in a state of shock as President Raul Castro faced tough questions from American journalists who challenged him to defend Cuba's record on human rights and political prisoners.

In a country where publicly questioning the authority of Castro and his brother and predecessor Fidel is unthinkable for most, and where the docile state-run media almost always toe the party line, the live broadcast was must-see TV. Some also marveled at tough questioning of President Barack Obama, simply unaccustomed to seeing any leader challenged in such a way.

"This is pure history and I never thought I'd see something like this," said Marlene Pino, a 47-year-old engineer. "It's difficult to quickly assimilate what's happening here. For me it's extraordinary to see this."

 
"It's like a movie, but based on real life," said Ricardo Herrera a 45-year-old street food vendor.

In one eye-catching moment, Castro's response suggested that perhaps Havana is not always perfect on human rights. He argued that no country is, said it is incumbent on all to try to do better and defended his government's support of what it considers important human rights issues: providing universal, free education and health care.

At an outdoor cafe in the Vedado neighborhood, about a dozen Cubans and tourists watched in awed silence as both Castro and Obama spoke. One stunned woman held a hand to her mouth.

"It's very significant to hear this from our president, for him to recognize that not all human rights are respected in Cuba," said Raul Rios, a 47-year-old driver who also expressed agreement with the president's more nuanced explanation about rights and his argument that that no country is perfect.

"We are living in historic times, the United States and Cuba," Rios added. "Nobody could have imagined this in the past. I think this marks a before and after."

It's extremely rare for Castro to hold a news conference, though he sometimes takes questions from reporters spontaneously when the mood strikes. He's known as a much more cautious and reluctant public speaker than his loquacious older brother Fidel, who was given to talking for hours at a time and often directly with journalists.

The Cuban government and the Communist Party control nearly all media in Cuba, including TV and radio channels and print newspapers. There are a handful of independent online outlets, though more critical ones like dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez's 14ymedio are blocked on the island — and certainly never get access to the president or other top officials.

Monday's news conference also included an exchange between Castro and CNN reporter Jim Acosta, a second-generation Cuban-American, who asked about political prisoners in Cuba.

Castro testily addressed Acosta directly, saying "After this meeting is over, you can give me a list of political prisoners, and if we have those political prisoners, they will be released before tonight ends."

Cuba is criticized for briefly detaining demonstrators thousands of times a year but has drastically reduced its practice of handing down long prison sentences for crimes human rights groups consider to be political. Amnesty International said in its 2015-2016 report that it knew of no prisoners of conscience in Cuba, although a non-governmental group in Cuba that monitors human rights says it has a list of 80 behind bars and 11 more under house arrest. Cuban officials say many of those are common criminals.

Many islanders have a laundry list of complaints about daily life: corruption, scarcity, low salaries and so on. But few express sympathy for the outspoken political opponents of the Communist system.

"The journalist asked him about some political prisoners who aren't political prisoners. So the response from the president was very good, very appropriate: 'Show me the list,'" said Oscar Rodriguez, 81. "The questions shouldn't be so aggressive."

Alexander Galvez, a 43-year-old artist, was not impressed by Castro, who fidgeted with the headphones that piped in translations and then abruptly ended the news conference, saying, "I think this is enough."

"I think his answers left a lot to be desired. Raul seemed really nervous to me," Galvez said. "I also thought he was a bit jammed up. I would have liked for him to let them ask more questions and be open to all kinds of questions."
Click to expand...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6793812c8aa047198d391a790f99821b/must-see-tv-cubans-marvel-rare-questioning-castro

 
Apparently conservative talk radio is up in arms because Obama did not immediately fly from Cuba to Belgium to "deal with" the terrorist attack.

 
 


Obama calls for democracy, end of arbitrary detentions in Cuba



 
HAVANA



President Barack Obama encouraged Cubans to embrace democracy and its leaders to allow dissent and be open to change during a much-anticipated and nationally televised speech.

“Havana is only 90 miles from Florida, but to get here, we had to travel a great distance, over barriers of history and ideology, barriers of pain and separation,” he said. “I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas.”

During the lengthy speech, Obama talked about the cultural and historical ties the United States and Cuba share, saying that they transcended politics.

And while he praised the island’s commitment to healthcare and education, he said the ruling party needed to listen to the voice of its people.

“I believe citizens should be free to speak their mind without fear, to organize and criticize their government and protest peacefully,” he said. “And that the rule of law should not include arbitrary detentions of people who exercise those rights.”

But he said the United States was not interested in imposing its ideals or form of government on the island, that the Cuban people must chart their own route.

“In the United States, we have a clear monument to what the people can build,” he said. “It’s called Miami.”

The speech comes at the tail end of a historic, three-day visit to Cuba.

The trip is being overshadowed by the attacks in Brussels, Belgium, which have left at least 26 dead.

“We will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally, Belgium, in bringing to justice those who are responsible,” Obama said. “And this is yet another reminder that the world must unite. We must be together, regardless of nationality or race or faith in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.”

After the speech, Obama is expected to meet with members of Cuba’s civil society, including dissidents who are often harassed by the government. In the afternoon, Obama and the first family will be taking in an exhibition baseball game between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Cuban national team before departing from the José Martí International Airport on their way to Buenos Aires for the next leg of their journey.

Earlier in day, at the Gran Teatro de la Habana Alicia Alonso, where Obama will be speaking, the sound system was playing “Hasta Siempre, Comandante” — a tune about Ernesto ‘Ché’ Guevara — and other hits from the revolution.

Members of Congress on the presidential delegation to Cuba began filing into the theater at about 9:30 a.m. They included Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Amy Klobuchar, D-Mn., **** Durbin, D-Il. and Dean Heller, R-Nevada, along with Democratic Reps. Steve Cohen and Charlie Rangel.

Among those watching Obama’s speech from the center of the first balcony: The vice president of Cuba and heir apparent to Castro, Miguel Díaz-Canel; Politburo member Esteban Lazo; Foreign Trade Minister Rodrigo Malmierca and other high ranking Cuban officials

Florida Rep. Kathy Castor, who represents the Tampa Bay area, came with a stash of Tampa Bay Rays baseball caps to hand out ahead of this afternoon’s baseball game between the Rays and the Cuban national team.


Swords into Plowshares


The last time a U.S. president visited Cuba was Calvin Coolidge in 1928. He delivered the keynote address at the Pan-American Conference from the same stage used Tuesday. Coolidge urged the nations of the Western Hemisphere to embrace peace and value the principles of freedom and democracy. The time had come to “beat our swords into plowshares,” he said.

“The smallest and the weakest speak here with the same authority as the largest and the most powerful,” Coolidge said in that speech. “You are continuing to strike a new note in international gatherings by maintaining a forum in which not the selfish interests of a few but the general welfare of all will be considered.”

Obama spoke on a stage flanked by red theater curtains, with reliefs in gold and white of the comedy and drama masks flanking each side of the stage. There is seating on the ground floor and four floors of balcony seating.

The backdrop for the speech included a large Cuban and an American flag, with more flags on stanchions on stage.

The grand neo-baroque building dates to 1838 and was initially built to host the Galician Center of Havana. It was restored to its current glory in 2015 after three years of work.
Click to expand...



http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article67478692.html



 
Last edited by a moderator:
The grand neo-baroque building dates to 1838 and was initially built to host the Galician Center of Havana. It was restored to its current glory in 2015 after three years of work.
Click to expand...


- Fwiw this is where my family is from, Galicia, and that part of the country has a deep connection to Cuba. I'd like to go check this place out one day, if it's in any kind of shape.

 
CeMl5LRUUAAmS_N.jpg:large


No.

I don't think Obama should have rushed home, but no, no this is not appropriate, we have allies, people we fight with and are tied to in Europe, we should not be doing this while they are going through hell.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gianmarco
***Oficial*** Cuba National Team vs. Tampa Bay Rays Game Thread
Replies
2
Views
115
Todem
Todem
tom22406
China's military buildup in the South China Sea
Replies
40
Views
1K
Don't Toews Me
D
(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
794
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top