Thanks God for your solid logic and your clear exposition of the problem....
I repeatedly ask this question everyday in NYC: "Can you tell me if we Cubans are "less equal" under the eyes of God than any God fearing American?"
I get all kinds of answers. Nasty ones come from the enlightened atheists that are out there to defend the whole liberal enchilada from a to z and who would like to see this country as an extension of some wimphole they admire.
kagasstro is a tyrant, and no more.
But still, they want to deal with him as if he were a democracy lover. He is a Demo-Rat lover, that's another thing, and that's because they are his enablers, the ones who even gave him Elian and that had played in all his schemes along.

Funny how this apologist rabble-gaggle constantly pontificates about the "right" of people to travel to Cuba and against the "embargo," but never mentions the lack of travel rights for Cubans within their own country, or the internal embargo "kakasstroffe" has imposed against his "own" people. For a looksee at the products "embargoed" Cuba offers for EXPORT ONLY, take a look at therealcuba.com home page. It is a succint, graphic commentary on the hypocrisy of the "embargo" issue.

We must repeat this until ears bleed. Every day the forces of the left, starting with the MSM, trumpets fidel's regime with lies, and more lies. We are the antidote. Our voices must multiply exponentially until all that is heard, is truth.

Val, with all due respect, I don't see the link. Castro will jail opponents with travel or without. If we want people to start seeing him for what he is, first we have to stop antagonizing them. I think one of the fundamental blunders we have committed is to have ceded the PR battle to Castro. We are just too insular sometimes.

Many Americans (off all stripes) will tell you that the government shouldn't be in the business of telling them where to travel. If they are free to go to China or North Korea, they should be able to go to Cuba. I think there's where we lose the argument. Let them go to Cuba and let them see reality. The good ones will make their own opinion.

My wife is American and a rabid liberal to boot. She's been in Cuba twice to visit my family. Being there and being able to talk to people freely, living in their house and experiencing all the difficulties, radically changed her opinion of the regime. So there will always be some people who go for the cheap vacation, and there will always be some extremist left fanatics. Under the current system THOSE are the only people who go, via third countries. They are not deterred by the restrictions.

Val, CB, Alberto:

I will repeat what I have said before: the Governement of USA has no rights to limit the freedom of movements of its citizens. That is the way I see it. While I agree that in this particular case there is a real moral issue in the background I really don't want the Government legislating about my morals.

I really don't understand why it appear so compelling to limit someone else's freedom because we think is the right thing to do in this our particular case. Who is going to decide what cases are right and in which others are wrong? Why do we have to repeat the same thing that we condemn? Can't we fight Castro in any other way?

For me is a moral issue and shouldn't be a legal one. If someone see hypocrisy in my pov feel free to comment.

Val, this is your blog, your electronic home so to speak. It is no my intention to abuse your hospitality to create debate or discussion. I do think that debate and discrepancies are good but that is another issue.

There is a lot of material about the source of human rights. It is a very interesting subject and prone to a lot of discrepancies. Of course, atheists won't buy the "God given rights" approach. And different religions see this point, as we could expect, differently.

Vals asks: Are the rights of one Cuban not as valuable or God given as the rights of one American?

and CB: Can you tell me if we Cubans are "less equal" under the eyes of God than any God fearing American?"

Well, second guessing God is risky busisness to say the least. But in fact, it really doesn't matter because whatever the source of human rights you do accept (and whatever list of rights do you like) it is at the end a problem of the Governement. From the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

That is why while a religious person could conclude that both a "God fearing American" (I don't know if the other Americans would have the same rights by this approach but that is not important right know) and a Cuban have the same rights, it is not up to the American Government to secure those rights for Cubans.

Just my two cents...

Note: It is interesting to see a Liberal Democrat (I think Gansibele considers himself as such, otherwise I apologize) that so love Governement involvement in everyday life fighting Government intervention (travel restrictions) while Conservatives (you guys), that usually fight against it, supporting it. The logic is for some reason inverted...

Gansibele,
you are again at it?
You are probably some sick sadomasochist who likes the constant intellectual beating-cheburgerizing you get in this site... what are you waiting for to raise your liberal white flag and leave for good as you did wehn you ran from the arguments you started at the Hog on Ice?
I have an idea:
I will have to travel to Miami sooner than later.
Maybe we can meet and we can set a ring so I can beat the living bejesus out of your soulless atheistic red body.... My intention is to take bets, and sell food and drinks to donate the proceeds to the families of the jailed dissidents in Cuba. That they will appreciate from you!
I am so sorry that you are not as popular as you wished in South Florida, and I am very glad that you are very succesful in your day job. Maybe you should stick to it. Believe me, I -fortunately- don't know you, but you are far from brilliant as your friend says....
There's no brilliancy or shine whatsoever in what you write. There's only shameless treachery.
Get your pro-lefts views in a tight packed and take them where they are welcome.
Have a nice life.

Roberto,
I respecfully disagree with you in every and any point. I still have my opinions and I don't try to change or deconstruct yours, I just leave you alone with reality so you can analyze what you observe and what's the response we get from cagastro.

Roberto,
Under the eyes of God
God fearing Americans...
Those are ways of saying in English.
If you want a PC version read: Under the eyes of the Law and Society, and "law abiding Americans". And tell me if that's not the same.
I don't think that the American government has to step into this for the rights of the Cubans less than they stepped into other countries for the rights of their citizens, like Europe during WW2 or Bosnia. And remember that Kennedy stopped the Cubans from fighting to re-instate their stolen rights... As far as the Goverment issues initiatives for democracy in Cuba, well that's part of the package and that's why one votes from one candidate and not for the other.
Just my two cents, of equal face value than yours.

Val, with all due respect, I don't see the link. Castro will jail opponents with travel or without. If we want people to start seeing him for what he is, first we have to stop antagonizing them. I think one of the fundamental blunders we have committed is to have ceded the PR battle to Castro. We are just too insular sometimes.

The link is painfully obvious, gansibele. All of these efforts being put forth to lobby for a change to the travel restrictions send a message, loud and crystal clear, that Americans see themsleves as better than their Cuban counterparts. Imagine all that work to lobby congress and what not being used to help Cubans travel abroad. You speak of we being too insular, but by arguing for the lifting of travel restrictions for Americans without doing same for the Cubans it is the epitomy of being insular.

Many Americans (off all stripes) will tell you that the government shouldn't be in the business of telling them where to travel. If they are free to go to China or North Korea, they should be able to go to Cuba. I think there's where we lose the argument. Let them go to Cuba and let them see reality. The good ones will make their own opinion.

Using the "Americans are free to travel to China and North Korea" argument is a cheap shot, gansibele, and one I find below your abilities to debate.Just because travel to China and North Korea is allowed, it does not make it right. And the "let them see for themsleves" is another argument I have problems with. It portrays the American as arrogant and condescending. Just how much data, how many facts and figures and numbers, how much documented evidence do Americans need for proof of the injustices of castro's system? Doesnt it smack of arrogance that Americans "must see for themselves" while cubans, both on the island and in exile, have been vociferoulsy bringing to light proof for decades?

My wife is American and a rabid liberal to boot. She's been in Cuba twice to visit my family. Being there and being able to talk to people freely, living in their house and experiencing all the difficulties, radically changed her opinion of the regime. So there will always be some people who go for the cheap vacation, and there will always be some extremist left fanatics. Under the current system THOSE are the only people who go, via third countries. They are not deterred by the restrictions.

Again, I appreciate the fact that your wife learned for herself what life in Cuba is like, but that fact is only because she didnt take the time to truly absorb all of the evidence and data available to any and all interested in truly fostering a chnage in Cuba itself. It is all out there and in plentitude. Again for me, the argument of seeing for yourself doesnt cut it.

While Cubans on the island may appreciate the few dollars here and there that American tourists would trickle into their pockets, when these Americans leave, the Cubans are left in the same system with the same understanding that they are still second class citizens, with the same hopelessness now being increased because the Americans lobbied to be able to travel to Cuba freely, while they themselves will still be confined to their island quarters, this time with a better understanding that the US is, indeed, only looking out for itself.

Just my 2 cents worth.

CB,

Let's try maintain a modicum of civility, please. I didnt see gansibele stating anything offensise directly at you. he's entitled to his opinion, howver flawed that opinion I and you may find it to be, just as we are entitled to ours.

Sorry, Val.

Hi CB,

Aren't you going to argue? That's is boring CB! But that's OK... I wasn't trying to change your opinions just expressing mine. Maybe the difference arises from different priorities or different wieght in the same priorities... Cuba is definitely a point of high interest for me. But USA, its laws, it history etc... is of the greatest interest too. And if I see something that can eventually be used by our liberal friends (Gansibele are you listening?) as a precedent to make the Governement (ours, yours and mine) more involved in our lifes I will generally oppose.

Have a nice day!

A RABID LIBERAL is a person whose arrogance, egocentricity and excessive sense of self goes to such extreme that NOTHING anyone else has to say makes a shit of difference. The center of the world lies squarely within their own minds. So of course she must see for HERSELF what other people have been saying, documenting and suffering for 46 years because HERS is the only and ultimate opinion of value.
If we subscribe to the theory that the concept of left wing / right wing / totalitarian politics are not linear, but more akin to degrees in a circumference; A point in that circumference marks a middle of the road political view and the direct opposite, the extreme views that lead to a totalitarian mentality (Either left or right wing) , RABID liberal is just seconds away from being a RABID DESPOT.

Roberto,

Perhaps, if we look at it this way:

Considering that we the US are the purveyors and promoters of true democracy and freedom, doesnt it stand to reason then that we make a sacrifice, in solidarity, by restricting our own to bring about a change for those in dire need of change?

In the greater scheme of things, it's not much of a sacrifice at all. As we can travel to every other nation in the world. We limit ourselves of traveling to one small nation for that nation.

Dont view it as the government dictating morality, it is the government fostering its principles by making a sacrifice.

Surely, you dont beleive, as the MSM is trying to convince all of, that this travel restrictions thing was instituted purely as a political payback to the Cuban American community? The negative domestic political ramifications of this far outweigh the positives.

There in no nobler deed than sacrificing of oneself for the benefit of another.

Hi CB,

Down with the PC policy!
Down with the Affirmative Action!
Abolish Public Schools!

Gee, now I feel better...

[And I am serious]

I am not quite sure that USA went to Europe (or to Iraq) to fight "for the rights of their citizens"; but definetely not to fight against those rights and those rights were in line with USA interests. But we are not talking about going anywhere do we?

Kennedy... did you have to mention Kennedy?

Yes, you vote according to your priorities. And, btw, I have said before (and I think Gansibele too) that I would support the embargo Today as it is even as I disagree with some of its measures.

Rgds

Roberto, I cannot dig out for you now photos of the concentration camps in Europe or the gassed Kurds and the mass graves in Iraq. I think that all of those qualify as going there to defend somebody.
If you don't see it that way, after seeing those photographs, then I don't know what to tell you to convince you.

Val,

I think there is a good thing with the travel restrictions: Castro (hopefully) receives less cash. It is no so easy to evaluate the opposite pov (that the flow of tourist will impact the regimen) but the ones that thought that the Pope's visit would have an impact were obviously wrong. I personally doubt that it would mean anything.

And there are a couple of bad things (imo). First and foremost, underlines and reinforces some trends that I see in our culture (and in the liberal field) to give the Government a particularly important role in our life. That, imho, hurts us more than anyone else (as the Affirmative Action hurts the ones is supposed to help).
Secondly, it sets a precedent that could be eventually used in manners that I couldn't approve even morally (as it is in this case).

I fully understand what you just said and if you insert "voluntarily" here and there I fully suscribe it. What merit there is in not doing something that you are forced to by law?

CB,

I know that. And I am happy for the Iraquis. But you know that those Kurds where gassed many years ago. That those mass graves weren't recently filled.

But we acted now because we need to act now. I am not saying anything bad againt us (at least as I understand the issues). What I am saying is that there are (and were) interests of the United States at play too. I don't think that USA can do everything (Rwanda, Sudan, etc...).

It doesn't matter when they were gassed. We were there on 1991 too. And the people who were executed in Cuba with no trial just for opposing cagastro are older bodies than the gassed Kurds and the filled to the tops mass graves. Are they unimportant because of their assasination date?
Satan Hussein didn't stop the carnage until the American troops blasted their way through Baghdad.
And you have lived in Europe, you know that we entered there to liberate peoples who couldn't liberate themselves and to stop the Soviets from swallowing a whole continent and expelling only their rotting bones through their rear ends. You know that well.

By the way, nobody but the US takes the stake and the front lines to do anything. Then they accuse us of being "world police". Nice. Then they ask for their Marshall plan. Nice twice!

CB;

I told you already to stop wasting your time with me. I only debate with people who are respectful of a different point of view (that goes for you too Kill - you are the one who is inches away to be a despot. I knew tons of people like you in Cuba).

The only reason i'm answering you is to let you know I didn't run away from Hog On Ice. The webmaster asked me not to post anymore and I'm respecting his wishes. I'll do the same if Val asks me.

"the Government of USA has no rights to limit the freedom of movements of its citizens"
Well see, your problem here is that IT DOES!. It may look arbitrary in the way it is applied (and THAT may be the source of your frustration) but "FREEDOM TO TRAVEL ABROAD" is not part of any constitutional right. Now freedmom of movement (as you put it) I think noone gives a shit if you move from New Jersey To Utah.

The USA has ALWAYS had the power to restrict travel abroad to areas of the world they consider either dangerous, unfriendly or ideologically at odds with the USA.
Why? NATIONAL SECURITY ! simple as THAT!

In the 1975 signing of the Final Helsinki act the USA vowed “to facilitate greater travel” across the world (see full quote below) . Had there been a constitutional RIGHT to travel abroad such a "vow" would’ve been unnecessary

So you either need to do a little more research or try to tone down your absolutes regarding things of which you are not fully versed.

The US government also restricts the right of its citizens to travel abroad. As a signatory of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the United States vowed to "facilitate wider travel." However, the US continues to limit travel to a number of countries, including Cuba, for ideological reasons.

Caballeros,

I have much better things to do than to sit here and play Abuelita to the comments section of the blog.

If we cant have a debate wothout invective and mudslinging back and forth, I WILL ELIMINATE THE FUCKING COMMENTS SECTION ALTOGETHER.

Val; I see your point and I respect it. I know it's frustrating that we have been saying and proving Castro is a tyrant for years and many people still don't get it. It is out there in plentitude, but so it's the other point of view. Unfortunately, Americans are also lazy when it comes to be fully informed about the issues. They get their news and opinions in snippets from here and there. Outside Miami, we don't have that much traction with public opinion.

I just think it's time to maybe try another way. I saw it work not only with my wife, with other people too. A while ago I was skiing with my family in Vermont. We stayed at a bed and breakfast and when the owners learned I was Cuban, they wanted to have dinner with us. I usually cringe, because I know it always ends in a history lesson and an argument, but whatever. We got into a screaming argument like you couldn't believe - I got the usual Miami Cuban label, etc. Long story short, they ended up asking my mom, who had just came in from Cuba and were flabbergasted when she confirmed everything I said. Was it arrogant from them? Yes it was. Did it make them change their views? probably not. But at least now they can't say they didn't hear it from the horse's mouth.

When I said the thing about China and North Korea, I was just repeating what Americans (usually very involved, questioning, patriotic people) told me. It's not my argument, it's theirs. I don't think is morally right to support Kim Il Sung and I wouldn't do it myself. It's not about Americans being better per se, it's that we as Americans have better rights than Cubans. That situation has to change from inside Cuba. It's a hard argument to make that we should restrict our liberties because other countries restrict their citizen's.

Roberto; I don't know if i'm a liberal Democrat as is commonlly understood (many of my liberal friends will certainly disagree). That's why I don't like labeling people. In many issues we may be closer than you think.

Gansibele,

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as you relate it to be. You will get a very small pecentage of Americnas that will actually give a rats ass about the Cuban people traveling to Cuba, as those that do have an interest in the problems of the people of Cuba will most assuredly not travel to the island in the first place. What we will have are either a bunch of leftist morons who will swallow the castro BS hook, line and sinker, and another bunch that really doesnt care one way or the other, as long as they can get a good tan at a cutrate price, and then a very relative few who would actually be appalled by what they see. It is not worth it.

Compounding this is the undeniable fact that every dollar that goes to Cuba ultimately ends up in fidel castro's hands.

I appreciate your views and your wanting to try a different approach. However, said approach may turn out to be incredibly detrimental to the cause, and may, in fact, end up hurting more than helping.

Cojones, man. No es facil.

I support 100% the US embargo against Cuba. I support 100% the travel restrictions against Cuba. However we Cubans and Cuban-Americans must be the ones to unite and eliminate the Castro regime. We must do a better job of turning the world's public opinion to support our cause to eliminate the Castro regime. There should not have to be laws prohibiting us from traveling to Cuba, we should voluntarily refuse traveling to Cuba and helping the Cuban government in any way by giving the Cuban government one penny of our money. The suffering in Cuba is only important to us, it is an issue that non Cubans are not worried, or care about. If Americans, or any other citizen of any other country in the world wants to travel to Cuba, let them. How can we criticize anyone from wanting to travel to Cuba, when we are the ones that travel to Cuba the most. What is most shameful is that most travel done by Cubans is not to visit and help families, but they travel to Cuba to go on vacation, show off how good they have it here, spend time with jineteras that they can have for a few dollars, and even to do business by selling junk to the people in Cuba. We have the government we deserve.

Hi Kill,

Freedmom of movement isn't contitutionally protected either... Then it would be ok for you if some restrictions arise in that respect.

By the way, there are many things that aren't protected in the Bill of Rights. It would be unpractically long.

Apparently, you think that is ok if the Government regulates the travel of the citizens for a good cause (good as determined by some other manner, probably majority vote). I hold the opinion that it is wrong.

Would you travel to nazi Germany in 1943 to see the quaint death camps? No. Apartheid South Africa? No. Why is ok to travel to Cuba?

I always wonder why the U.S. has NEVER done anything about Castro?

Took Noreiga a lot less then what Castro has done to get his ass out of power,so why is Castro still there?

Very simple really,as I have seen it from both sides of the fence as a civilian and soldier,the US PROTECTS Castro,and for those who don't agree with me,show me otherwise.

Aqui hay mas de lo que pintan,they forbid me from traveling freely to Cuba but not to other communist countries? Hahahahaha!

Que clase descaro!

Kathleen,

I case you are talking to me... I did not say that is OK to travel to Cuba. I think is probably -morally- OK in some cases and, from my perspective, wrong when for frivolous motives.

My comment was not directed at an individual, just expressing my take on this subject. Personally I would not try to stop someone from visiting family and trying to help them, even though I don't think I would. Contrary to what some think I do not believe Cubans are here for "economic" reasons. If Cuba was free of castro and wasn't a totalitarian state with no rights there wouldn't be an exile community. My problem is with tourists, especially those masquerading as a religious charity.

What I find interesting is the amount of postings that I have seen today that play right into the liberal agenda, they seem to come right out of the woodwork. Somebody that reads this blog today for the first time would be under the impression that there's no consensus against kagasstro and that there are a lot of agents provocateurs lurking around. Maybe they would be right on the second point.

Yuca: There is an answer to your question and it is absolutely miserable. JFK was a liberal and like all liberals, he was happy to give away the store. In 1963 or so, there was something called The Cuban Missile Crisis, where castro went into league with soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev and pointed missiles at us. Nuclear ones. This so scared the US that Kennedy was willing to give castro any concession to make them stop. What did castro demand? In exchange for not nuking us, Kennedy promised that the US would never invade the island. That is the only reason we haven't. It totally sucks, but the Democratic Party never have really has historically cared much about people in slavery. The whole ugliness just doesn't bother them. Hence, the sad situation we see now in Cuba.

YUCA,

Id be glad to read and contemplate any reasonable data you have regarding this conspiracy theory you have just thrown out there. Feel free to send me whatever pertinent, veriafiable information you have on the matter.

Hi Kathleen,

This is a difficult issue. Every time we try to make the State make something for us somehow it get messy (Thats is just my experience). Do you realize that the same people that you "not believe are here for 'economic' reasons" is the same ones that go to Cuba as tourists "masquerading as a religious charity"? Of course there aren't exactly the same persons but they are parte of the same Cuban people.

CB, we should do our best to unmask such provocatours... it is a difficult thing to do, eventually they even try to look as radicals making things still more difficult... but we will try... :-)

A.M.

With respect to the 1962 Missile Crisis I think is exactly as you said except that Castro was out of the loop. He even asked Nikita to use the missiles against USA (Nikita thought he was crazy btw). And was pissed when Nikita and JFK reached an agreement. I wonder what that agreement is considered a triumph for J.F.K. He agreed not to invade Cuba (Judging by 1961 I don't think he wanted to) and gave up some missiles in Turkey. If that is a triumph I don't want to see what would be a defeat..

Gansibele, for example.

There was an actual letter from Castro to Kruschev where he tells him to be the first one to attack. You read the language and it makes you realize the guy is crazy. Afterwards he accused Kruschev of treason when he was removed as Soviet Prime Minister.

Roberto, the agreement was basically the Turkey missiles for the Cuba missiles. I can see some victory on that from Kennedy's POV. Back then there were no ICBMs or nuclear attack submarines. The Cuba missiles were the closest threat to the US. Agreeing not to invade Cuba, as you say, was inconsequential for him.

Kagasstro wanting to be the first to attack, and I spend my day here listening to people defending the right to do business with the enemy. Interesting. Roberto please, tell me that Tovarich Komissar Gansibele is not a kagasstroist agent!

Roberto, Where's the difficulty and who said anything about the state giving us anything? I know that some Cubans return as tourists. That is immoral as well. Just because some people break the law and some people are immoral doesn't negate the law or the morality behind said law.

Gansibele:

Yes, you are right but I think the Turkey missiles were there way before the crisis and then I percieve the thing as a net loss for USA before and after the crisis.

CB: I liked that Tovarich Komissar thing (I hope Gansibele doesn't get offended by that). Castro is our enemy (let us forget about the 1B dollars we collectivly send to that enemy per year) but maybe, just maybe, isn't considered an enemy -for watever stupid reason- by the rest USA. Can we _force_ everyone into our perception? - I don't think so. We can only do our best to convince the ones that think differently. And there are many that think differently.

If Gansibele gets offended, well tough. Much that I care. I am taking bets, as I said.
In this country kagasstro is not perceived as an enemy because of his agents in the Pentagon, Ana Belen Gansibele Montes, for example, wrote a long report saying that he posed no threat. Because of the Mainstream Media and because some retarded loves Turner (or Turdner) and Soros and Hanoi Jane.
But the US is still the enemy to be reckoned with in Cuba, as per kagasstro's propaganda literature. If somebody says that you are his enemy, well the guy is your enemy, kind of clear.
If some schlub gets together with some schmuck to bomb your whole country flat with A bombs, that tells me that the schlub in question is your enemy. Maybe I am not that nuanced, or grey enough. Maybe I am not red. That's the color I am not.

Kathleen,

Whay I meant is that the same Cubans that want to be considered political refugees go to Cuba by the truckload. Well, no exactly the same people but you get the idea.

The other thing that I said was that when you get the Governement involved in something its get messy. And that is what we do when we ask the Governement to use his monopoly on violence to enforce a restrictive law. I think that if we Cubans where a better example with respect to Cuba (travel, monet etc..) a lot more could be achieved from the rest of America.

The missiles in Turkey had been considered expendable anyways, since there were new capabilities being developed (nuclear submarines) with superior firepower.

The HUGE failure of intelligence was Kennedy's inaction on CIA warnings that Soviet ships going to Cuba carried missiles. By the time Kenney declared the naval blockade, several of the missiles were already in place. Although it was found out, after documents were declassified in the 90s, that the Soviet forces had instructions not to attack even if the US invaded Cuba. Which shows it was all a bluff by the Soviets.

Kennedy entered the agreement with Krushev to protect the US, which was his duty. Remember that in addition to Castro, there were hawks in the Soviet Union eager to launch an attack as well. Kennedy received two different, contradictory messages from Krushev. He acted on the second one - rightly guessing that Krushev was going to stand down. The whole episode ended up as an embarrasement to the Soviet Union (they had to back away from a crisis they created) and cost Krushev his position. Cuba was just a pawn in the game.

It takes more than that to offend me. I've been laughing at the whole thing with CB actually.

You actually sounded very scared.
Maybe you went to the mirror and screamed like Howard Dean. I could imagine you calling Vermont for advise.

Yeah, you are very scary. Veryyyyyyyyyyyy.

I just got a bright idea - I'm calling Mike Tyson to fight on my behalf. He's got that Che tatoo on his side. You'll love punching him there. Plus he's in Brooklyn, you won't even have to travel. What you think?

Thanks A.M.

Val as far as my so called conspiracy theory is concerned,there may not be open records to confirm this,but I'll see if someone I know is willing to speak to you about why he was in Cuba for nearly a year.

You may not like what you may hear,I know I sure as hell didn't!

I am all for it, I love the idea. He is a drunkard, loves che, and pigeons. It's a sorry motherfucker who calls himself a looser and who couldn't last more than a minute the last time he fought. The right representative for a prick like you, who by the way, you are proven yourself a total Demo-Rat, not even capable to fight for himself. Welfare fight by proxy, what a sorry ass.
By the way, your tattoed hero was beaten to a pulp in a hotel in Havana. Maybe you will get the message now, little red riding hood.

AN IDEA!!!

Perhaps regardless of what the government policy is, we should create a public awareness campaign stigmatizing travel to Cuba. Kind of like what the artist united against apartheid did. Most people didn't know where south africa was much less what apartheid was. Reporters without borders has some ads that show an airplane with a non-smoking sign but instead of the seatbelt it's a laptop or typewriter with the "no" sign. The headline says "if you go to Cuba, you are traveling to a country where there the press is censored and independent journalists are arrested.

We should put up banners on our blogs and ask our blogger friends to put them up. We could link the banners to a site with information about the real Cuba.

If everyone knew that one of the biggest types of tourism to Cuba, was sex tourism, a lot of people wouldn't be so open about their "trips to meet the warm people and see for themselves".

We could have ads about how Cubans are not allowed to interact with tourists.

Essentially what I'm saying is let make the idea of going to Cuba repugnant.

In my experience (I work in advertising) it's a lot easier to tear a product apart than to build one up. Look at the great creative work the anti-tobacco groups have done.

I can see some jinetera looking at the ceiling while some fat white guy is going at it. Cut to her going home to her kids and parents.

Maybe we could get the Mexico tourism board to underwrite it ;-).

Conductor,

I'm all aboard with your idea.

Good that you guys want to sum yourselves to something that is being done in the underground in Cuba, Italy and Spain. High time to do it right here too... There are people in Spain and Italy (Spaniards and Italians) giving tourists who are boarding planes to Cuba, photos, pamphlets and cards describint the situation in Cuba... they get their information from people inside Cuba.
Specifically, these people have been hunted down, unsuccessfully, by the Cuban personnel from the Emabassies and Consulates in those countries.

In Canada, a group did an ad campaign about travel to Cuba a few years ago. They put billboards at the main airports, right on the concourses where the flights to Cuba departed. I remember one of them, was a picture of a Cuban family behind bars looking out at tourists on the beach. The headline said: "Your paradise. Their hell." Very powerful.

It goes without saying that I'm onboard to come up with ideas, design the banners, whatever you need.

G,

I've been thinking about this. We could register a URL. It would basically be a static site with really brief copy about what Cuba is an is not and maybe a list of links links to site like netforcuba.org. And if we could get some funding from some one or more of the big organizations then we could do some of those Airport posters in Places like JFK airport and LAX. These because they have a lot of Int'l flights and also where the media flys in and out of (Pub. Rel. implications).