« Che, que haces con ese celular? | Babalu Blog - Main Page | The prince has spoken »

These fat-ass rubes are mostly lower middle-class stiffs who scrimp all year and cut coupons, for the privilege of vacationing in Cuba. There, they are treated like royalty by the less fortunate tourist workers who cater to their obnoxious behavior.

Canadian stripers on vacation...yuk!

Yeah, they are just ignorant work class people from Canada that don't know any better - but I don't blame them so much - I blame the Canadian gov't for being in bed with Cuba all these years. When Cuba becomes free - Canada is going to have some "splaning" to do.

Los cubanos de Hialeah hacen lo mismo en Punta Cana . El 85 % de los dominicanos vive en la pobreza aunque son libres

"These fat-ass rubes are mostly lower middle-class stiffs who scrimp all year and cut coupons, for the privilege of vacationing in Cuba. There, they are treated like royalty by the less fortunate tourist workers who cater to their obnoxious behavior."

You just described the average tourists who visit the Dominican Republic too. I've lived here for over 5 years and you just summed up 80% of them.

RHM. the tourists in the video are behaving as tourists are prone to behave. That's not the issue or the problem. The issue is that they are directly subsidizing the dictatorship. The poor people in the Dominican are not poor BECAUSE of the tourists spending money there, they are poor IN SPITE of it. In Cuba, hoteliers get into bed with the regime which is keeping the Cuban people poor by design.

Is the fact that thousands of "regular" Cubans are able to live somewhat better lives because these "fat-ass rubes" vacation in Cuba of any significance?

Or are these hotel workers, cab drivers, musicians, bar tenders, store clerks, maids, plumbers, electricians, air conditioning repairmen, etc. not relevant to the discussion?

Are they good tippers Henry?

Is the fact that thousands of "regular" Cubans are able to live somewhat better lives because these "fat-ass rubes" vacation in Cuba of any significance?

Do you have any evidence that that is the case?

Or are these hotel workers, cab drivers, musicians, bar tenders, store clerks, maids, plumbers, electricians, air conditioning repairmen, etc. not relevant to the discussion?

Oh but they are and they must get at least one or two extra grains of rice a week from it than they would otherwise at some other job. But also relevant is the regime that gets 99.999999999999999% of that money.

Oh but they are and they must get at least one or two extra grains of rice a week from it than they would otherwise at some other job. But also relevant is the regime that gets 99.999999999999999% of that money.

1 percent goes a long way in Cuba

Z,

You must not know very much about what goes on in Cuba.

Its basic: any Cuban worker who comes into contact with tourists/foreigners receives tips in foreign currency. They also have access to hotels and "dollar" stores where food, bedsheets, towels, soap, shampoo, toilet paper and other amenities are available (ie. taken home with appropriate discretion). The foreign currency allows access to items on the black market or in the "dollar" shops. The items "liberated" are either used, bartered or sold to further improve the standard of living.

Thousands of workers in Cuba have access to this "tourist economy." These workers have families comprised of thousands upon thousands more Cubans. They all benefit from the fat Canadians you saw "living it up" on Henry's video. Evidence? WTF (Way Too Funny).

The second part of your statement is too ridiculous to bother commenting about.

The second part of your statement is too ridiculous to bother commenting about.

Fair enough, I stand corrected on the first part. But why is the second part ridiculous? Are you saying most of the money from the tourists DOESN'T go to the regime?

Oh, and one other thing. Thousands of Cuban workers may have access to this "tourist economy" but the population is about 11 million. To paraphrase you, are the other 10+ million not relevant to the discussion, e.g., don't these regime-feeding tourists prolong their agony?

I was referring to the "one or two extra grains of rice a week" comment. I'm more than willing to consider opinions different from my own. I am more than happy to change my views, when shown to be wrong. But, I don't see a need to challenge or correct outrageous statements that do not advance a thoughtful discussion.

99.999999999% of the tourist money goes to the government. Your source? Or are you just making it up as you go along to advance your argument? You are on the right side of things. Don't let your credibility suffer by making outlandish statements not supported by truth.

Also, I reiterate, do the thousands upon thousands of Cubans who are able to improve their lives thanks to the tourist $$ matter? You don't have to answer here. Just consider it, answer it to yourself, and reconcile yourself to your opinion.

I was referring to the "one or two extra grains of rice a week" comment. I'm more than willing to consider opinions different from my own. I am more than happy to change my views, when shown to be wrong. But, I don't see a need to challenge or correct outrageous statements that do not advance a thoughtful discussion.

99.999999999% of the tourist money goes to the government. Your source? Or are you just making it up as you go along to advance your argument? You are on the right side of things. Don't let your credibility suffer by making outlandish statements not supported by truth.

Also, I reiterate, do the thousands upon thousands of Cubans who are able to improve their lives thanks to the tourist $$ matter? You don't have to answer here. Just consider it, answer it to yourself, and reconcile yourself to your opinion.

Z,

Every Cuban, on the island or off, except la camarilla, are relevant to the discussion of ways and means to achieve freedom for all Cubans.

I just happen to think that the "pressure cooker" theory 1) hasn't worked and is never going to work and 2) highly objectionable from a moral stand point. The old "starve the regime" approach merely serves to "pile on" misery on the already suffering Cuban population. So we are adding to the misery while achieving nothing.

Time for a new approach. Any fresh thoughts?

I've been working on our Cuba Nostalgia exhibit all day so I missed the debate. The Cuban state controls more than 90% of the economy, that's a fact. There are some Cubans at the periphery of the tourism industry that make some hard currency ILLEGALLY because the state does not officially sanction private enterprise except in very limited and very regulated and taxed circumstances. Even these people must buy things from the state. Even the black marketeers end up buying things from the state. Given the nature of the command economy in Cuba it's obvious that all the currency ends up back in the hands of the state. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

This model is the same model that Angel Castro (fidel's father) used. He underpaid his employees and then sold them their food and supplies in his store on his plantation at inflated prices. Fidel learned well from his daddy. What you are saying is that the farm hands on Angel's plantation would somehow benefit if we bought more from him. Well they might and they might not depending on how generous he was feeling at the moment.

If you think sending an army of fat drunk slobs from middle america is going to have any more of an influence than canadian and british an spanish fat drunk slobs what can i say?

Henry,

We have no disagreement on the basic facts.

The difference is in the most basic philosophy about how the problem should be addressed. There is a camp that believes (for 50 years now) that starving the regime will yield results. Even though, as a collateral effect, this pressure causes additional misery in the lives of ordinary Cubans.

I have come to believe that this approach is futile and immoral. It has not yielded the desired result in 50 years. It will not yield the desired result in another 50 years. It has the added disgraceful consequence that it would starve the people along with starving the regime. I can no longer support that.

Analyzing the matter, I think I came to support this approach by inertia. It was in place for so long, and we heard from so many "authorities" that this was the best approach, the "patriotic" approach, that I came to believe it. We focused on mechanisms to harm the enemy, forgetting that these mechanism also harmed the victims of our enemy.

The other approach is to take (or allow) activity that will help improve the lives of ordinary Cubans, while continuing to pursue avenues to create and strengthen civil society, encourage international repudiation of the regime, inform the MSM and public, etc.

The objective is to cure the cancer without killing the patient. Remember the Hippocratic Oath: "First do no harm." We are prescribing medicine we do not have to take, and which is harming the patient without curing the disease.

99.999999999% of the tourist money goes to the government. Your source? Or are you just making it up as you go along to advance your argument? You are on the right side of things. Don't let your credibility suffer by making outlandish statements not supported by truth.

Apparently you have a hard time understanding exaggeration -- the unbroken series of 9's should have been a clue. When someone says something happened a gazillion times, do you actually press them for evidence that it really was "a gazillion"? Same with 'one or two extra grains of rice' (hey, even a Cuba layman like me knows it must be at least 3 or 4).

As for the whole "it's been 50 years, anybody have any new ideas" thing, first, do YOU have any new ideas other than lift the embargo?

Second, why is 50 years the limit? It took 74 years to break the Soviet Union, and 257 years to end slavery in colonial and then independent America, about which there are two interesting facts:

a) Slavery ended in large part because of a perfect embargo on the South in the form of a naval blockade, which highlights the fact that

b) The previous 253 years of "no embargo" on the South did not weaken the slave masters' grip one bit but in fact strengthened it.

There are more than enough Canadians, Western Europeans, Russians and God knows who else vacationing in Cuba that if tourism was going to be the secret weapon to break Castro's grip, we would have already been seeing results long ago. Yet somehow things in Cuba have steadily gotten worse ever since Castro's sugar daddy died (USSR).

All that said, I'm the first to admit that the U.S. embargo BY ITSELF won't bring the Castro govt down, but removing it, if anything, will only strengthen the regime. It will also make the US that much weaker and give Castro, Inc., a victory to gloat about to its people that it beat the USA, their only hope.

As much as I hate to say this, history (and common sense) show us that tyrannies -- from American slave masters to the USSR to North Korea to Nazi Germany to Baathist Iraq -- never come to an end peacefully because it is not in their nature to do so anymore than it's in a turtle's nature to fly. You can plead with a turtle to fly. You can bribe a turtle to fly. You talk bad about yourself, your family and country and even make movies to that effect in hopes that the turtle will see how enlightened you are and fly. You can even lift embargos on the turtle and send tourists to visit it in hopes that it will start flapping its nonexistent wings. But a turtle will not fly unless you pick it up and throw it.

Tyrants have to be violently removed, whether by revolutions from within or invasions from without, or some combination thereof. Cambio will not come via tourists frollicking on sunny beaches but through pitchforks by torchlight.

Sorry Z, I must have been out sick the day they taught "exaggeration" in Kindergarten.

All the saber rattling makes it hard to "hear" my one or two simple points. Here they are again in their barest essence.

First, the embargo hasn't work AND wont' work. There isn't a single example in the history of the world where an embargo has ever brought down a repressive regime. You candidly and honestly acknowledge the point. (thank you for that)

Two, the embargo keeps resources out of the hands of the cuban regime, but at the same time it hurts those we profess to want to help. Can you accept this as a fact also?

Hence, the embargo is (1) futile and (2) morally unacceptable. That is as simple as I can make it. There are those who may say "I don't care, I am more intersted in hurting the beast than in the welfare of the beast's victims." I understand that argument, but I happen to find it unacceptable.

As for freshe ideas, the immediate violent removal of the tyrants would be great. But, it isn't going to happen any time soon. So, we've got to come up with other things. Do I have all the answers? Of course not. But anyone who spends a little time thinking about it can see that keeping your right foot on the throat of the dictatorship, while you keep your left foot on the throat of the Cuban people isn't the way to go. So, remove impediments to helping regular Cubans along, while implementing whatever ideas people may have to speed the end of the regime. Anything that will work, and that won't harm the victims along with the victimizer is good.

Morally unacceptable? I'll tell you what's fucking morally unacceptable:

Saying borrón y cuenta nueva to these fucking crooks that have been abusing the Cuban citizenry for half a century in the name of a fucking socialist utopia that doesn't exist.

Going to Cuba to frolic and have a good old time while Biscet and his fellow prisoners of conscience waste away in castro, inc's dungeons.

Becoming accomplices in the abuse of Cuban workers by allowing U.S. companies to conduct joint ventures with castro, inc.

Don't give me "unacceptable."

You explain to me exactly how do any of the above things gets us closer to a free and democratic Cuba.

Coño.

The metaphor is not a cancer patient, it's a kidnap victim. All you want to do is give the kidnappers more money despite the fact they refuse to release the victim, on the off chance they might give a little more bread to the victim. The more you give, the more they want. Why would they EVER release the goose that laid the golden egg for them?

First, the embargo hasn't work AND wont' work.

Re-read my post: not BY ITSELF. But it can be a factor.

There isn't a single example in the history of the world where an embargo has ever brought down a repressive regime. You candidly and honestly acknowledge the point. (thank you for that)

Again, re-read. It came pretty close in the Civil War, and might well have worked on its own, though it would have taken a lot longer.

I think you have tunnel vision in that you assume that because a particular policy can't or doesn't single-handedly solve a problem that it's 100% worthless.

By this logic we should get rid of the Air Force because no war has ever been won through air power alone, right? What about the Navy? Dump it too, because no war has ever been won with seapower alone. What about ground forces? No MODERN war has ever been won entirely with ground forces. Now we have no military at all. And no-one has ever won a war without a military, so I guess we should bring back the air, sea and land forces.

An embargo can be very effective in conjunction with other policies, like supporting a democracy movement that would eventually overthrow the Commies. So let's add to it instead of staying on the capitulationist bandwagon where we give up on everything and strengthen Castro, Inc.

Henry,

Four letter words and expressions of self-righteous indignation do not necessarily amount to a cogent argument for or against any given policy.

You set up a false or strained parade of horribles and then ask me how "any of those things get us closer to a free Cuba." Well. . . obviously none of your self-selected scenarios accomplishes that. But, you have not addressed my points. Instead, you employ an extremely weak debating technique available to someone who has either not thought the matter through, or who does not have a good argument to make.

When you have a good and cogent argument to make in favor of the "pressure cooker" policy of yours, let me know. I'll be happy to consider it.

As for the metaphor, you are free to use yours and I'll use mine. That whole kidnapper metaphor has as many holes in it as any other we can possibly come up with.

Z,

I guess what we have here is a failure to communicate.

I'm talking about lessening the suffering of the Cuban people by removing mechanisms of deprivation imposed from these shores, that have not worked and will not work. And, you are carrying on about how an embargo "almost" defeated the South before the Civil War!!?? And, how we should get rid of the Air Force because it has never single handedly won a war.

Man, talk about Cubans being in serious need of the ability to communicate with each other across ideological differences. Imagine, we are both on the same side, but disagree about ONE policy, and we can't address the issue directly.

Don't know how the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians and the South Africans did it. We have some learnin' to do.

I guess what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Apparently so. You frequently dismiss my arguments with just a harumph, no substantive rebuttals.

I'm talking about lessening the suffering of the Cuban people by removing mechanisms of deprivation imposed from these shores, that have not worked and will not work.

And we are all telling you that removing the embargo won't help them one bit either, not even the ever-so-lucky tourist industry people, because there is NO SHORTAGE of tourists or trade from the rest of the world. Which makes me wonder why you are so hellbent on removing the embargo. Don't say "because it doesn't work" again, unless you're willing to admit in the same breath that removing it "won't work" either.

And, you are carrying on about how an embargo "almost" defeated the South before the Civil War!!??

No, DURING the Civil War. And this is what I mean by a vapid "harumph". No substantive rebuttal, just exclamation points and question marks to imply I'm being silly but without ever explaining why. WHY is that point not relevant? Please be specific.

And, how we should get rid of the Air Force because it has never single handedly won a war.

More harumph, and even a bit of misdirection thrown in. I am not saying that, I am using YOUR LOGIC to reach such a ridiculous conclusion. You say that because the embargo doesn't single-handedly depose dictators that it needs to be scrapped. I say that using that logic, we have get rid of each branch of the military because none of them can win a war single-handedly. My point is that the embargo IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER POLICIES could be a very effective tool, just as air, sea and ground forces are effective tools when used together. Should I move on to a fork, knife and spoon analogy?

Man, talk about Cubans being in serious need of the ability to communicate with each other across ideological differences.

As it happens, I'm not Cuban. But I am vehemently opposed to Communism in general and Castro in particular.

Imagine, we are both on the same side, but disagree about ONE policy, and we can't address the issue directly.

We are addressing it directly. You say over and over that the embargo isn't working, and we reply that lifting it won't work either so what good will that do? But you ignore that. Then you say that this tiny percentage of the population working in the tourism sector is harmed by the lack of American tourists, and I ask in return, how can that be when they are overrun with tourists from all over the world? But you ignore that. (If American tourists come, do you really think they will start paying these tourism employees more?)

And that's where we get stuck: Embargo "not working", must lift embargo. But wait, lifting embargo also not working -- see rest of world trading with and traveling to Cuba and not improving life there. Ignore. Then I'm left scratching my head, wondering why you are so hellbent on a policy change that won't help and would if anything prolong the agony.

Don't know how the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians and the South Africans did it. We have some learnin' to do.

The South Africans did it in part from international pressure in the form of boycotts (ironically often by tourists), a form of embargo. Eastern Europe did it with HUGE support from the USA/NATO, both in terms of communications (Radio Free Europe, etc), support of pro-democracy movements there, and a massive military to keep the Soviets in check, and minimal trade with the Eastern Bloc. Sort of an embargo.

Tourists did not win the Cold War.

Z,

I appreciate your thoughtful response. And, I am heartened to realize that you are not Cuban, yet you have a sincere interest in Cuba and its people.

I won't address each and every point you make. But let me touch on a couple. I am not, repeat NOT, proposing that lifting the embargo will somehow result in the fall of the dictatorship. You can reread each and every comment I have made, and you will not find that argument there.

What I am saying is that the embargo has not worked, and will not work to free Cuba. Yet, while it is ineffective for this purpose, it does hurt those it purports to help. Hence, it should be ended because it is ineffective and places a much greater burden on the victim, than it does on the victimizer. Consequently, it is not a morally justifible policy. So, please stop asking me to explain how ending the embargo will speed the fall of the dictatorship. I have not said that.

Removing the embargo, however, will help ordinary Cubans because the US is the world's largest economy (maybe China has surpassed the US by now, I don't know). It is only 90 miles from Cuba. Greater trade with the US, tourist dollars from the US, will benefit ordinary Cubans. Food and basic goods will be more readily available, there will be more money floating around to enable regular Cubans to avail themselves of the imported food and goods. It will make their lives that much less miserable. Yes, I know, it will also benefit the regime, but I am more concerned with helping the victim right now, and not fixated on "strangling" the regime.

Also, stop asking how fat sloppy Americans cavorting on the sand in Varadero will help speed the arrival of Democracy when fat sloppy Canadians and Spaniards have not accomplished it. I am not making that argument either.

As I have said many times before, and no one seems to want to grasp it, my argument is simple. The embargo has not worked. It hurts the people it purports to help. Period, end of argument.

Everyone is intent in attributing to me arguments I have not made, and asking me to justify how ending the embargo will end the regime or how more fat drunk tourist will speed the arrival of democracy. These are not my contentions. Capece?

Finally, with the lives of Cubans improved, lets continue, and even ramp up help to dissidents, help to elements of civil society ie. independent journalists, independent librarians, religious organizations that work with the people, etc. Allow Cuban-Americans to travel and visit family, make or renew connections to bring Cubans of different political views closer. No room or time here to explain completely, but I hope you get the picture.

Anyway, nice chatting with you. Think about what I have noted here. It makes sense.

I've written tens of thousands of words about the embargo, the speak for themselves. All I hear from opponents are the same bullshit arguments.

As for the three scenarios I chose, all of those would be exactly what lifting the embargo without gaining concessions would entail.

That is exactly what has happened with Spanish and Canadian investment in Cuba. That is what U.S. investment in Cuba would represent: a legitimizing of an illegitimate regime, a failure to obtain justice for the victims and a collaboration with the victimizers.

Period, end of story.

The regime can have the embargo lifted within six months.

Do you know how?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: