Family Values Under the Bush Administration

[Regnad Kcin]

question: Will Fidel Castro ever die?

Well, if he doesn't, then ironically somebody in Florida wants to give him $1 million.

Comedy gold.

 

[Mycroft]

All of which make for lovely soundbites about how eeeevil Cuba is, but it still doesn't explain why American citizens shouldn't be allowed to go there or, for that matter, buy a Cuban cigar when they want to. Especially when a country like China--which, again, makes Cuba look like Disneyland--is fair game.

I think you're right in that there is a double standard, but I think the solution to that is to restrict relations with China, not ease up on Cuba.

 

[fishbob]

You mean Bush pleased 52% of the electorate in November, 2004 without even trying?

Damn, he's good...

Damn, he's a great campaigner. If you like vapid.
He just happens to be a terrible chief executive. Unless you like vapid.

But you still lose.

 

[Kerberos]

Three points:

• When a country has communism as its economic system, claiming that its economic ills are because the U.S. won't buy any of its primary export is akin to saying that a 400 pound sedentary McDonaldsholic is having heart problems because of the second-hand smoke he's exposed to on his weekly hour-long visit to the pool hall. Every single country that has tried communism has found it to be a complete economic disaster. Short of out-and-out war, communism is the greatest wealth-destroying force the world has ever seen, and it is so wildly unpopular among its subjects that governments almost always have to resort to naked force to keep it in effect.
• Getting rid of communism would be a double benefit for Cuba. It would remove the wealth-destroying mechanism from the country, and the U.S. would likely lift the embargo. Why does Castro insist on crippling his country with an economic system that has never worked? Personal vanity? A religious-style devotion to a clearly bankrupt system?

• 
  OK, let's see:
  
  1) Communism sucks.
  
  2) Castro is a poopoohead.
  
  OK, all clear now? I seriously doubt anybody on this threat disagrees with either of theese points so can you let go of this pathetic red hearing now? Because while both are true neither has the slightest impact on the issue of whether the embargo hurts Cuba.
  
  

  [*]As for your claim that "[t]he central problem with Communism is that they can't magically change the laws of economics, if they could it would work", the only response I can make to that is an old French saying: "If your grandmother had balls, she'd be your grandfather."

Ahh, yes, a classic tactic, when you have no argument you can always quote out of context to avoid the issue, Personally I prefer to mantain a bit of intelectual honesty, but I'm funny that way. anaways if I may persist in my unseemly habit of sticking to the point I'll try to make it simple for you.

1) Given that tourism worldwide has increased significantly since the embargo started, and assuming that the embargo does hurt the Cuban tourist industry do you think that Cubans will build enough new hotels to meet:

a) The actual Embargo adjusted demand for Cuban hotels?

or

b) The demand for Cuban hotels that would have existed in the absence of an embargo?

If a go to question 2, if b go to question 3.

2) If you aknowledge that supply adjust to demand, why do you insist that there should be aditional vacansies in Cuban hotels? Profound ignorance of economics? Deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? Non-deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? An impresive ability to hold 2 mutaually exclusive notions in you head?

3) Could you share the groundbreaking economic theory that allows you to reach this consclusion? When will you publish? Can you invite me to the Nobel Prize ceremony when you get it?

4) do you aknowledge that vacations and cigars are non-generic goods?

5) Do you aknowledge that embargoes have an effect on non-generic goods?

6) Who do you imagine should fill the tourist gap left by 280 million Americans? The 33 million Canadians? Or do you imagine that rich Europeans will totally disregard the aditional travel costs and inconvinience and replace every potential US tourist instead og going to Spain, Italie or Greece?

7) Is there any chance you'll actually answer these questions or do you prefer to continue deploying red hearings, quoting out of context, molest basic economic theory and all around avoid the issue?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think you're right in that there is a double standard, but I think the solution to that is to restrict relations with China, not ease up on Cuba.

Do you have any idea how much money we owe China?

Aside: Why do you and B seem to resist the notionof free trade with Cuba? Prosperity is making China less totalitarian, and giving it a burgeoning middle class. Isn't prosperity leads to freedom one of the cornerstones of conservatism?

 

[Kerberos]

I think you're right in that there is a double standard, but I think the solution to that is to restrict relations with China, not ease up on Cuba.

So in your mind no trade or travel should be allowed with almost any part of the Middle East, most of Africa and half of Asia?

 

[Kerberos]

Do you have any idea how much money we owe China?

Aside: Why do you and B seem to resist the nothing of free trade with Cuba? Prosperity is making China less totalitarian, and giving it a burgeoning middle class. Isn't prosperity leads to freedom one of the cornerstones of conservatism?

Now, now, there's no need to confuse the poor people with logic and consistency.

 

[Mycroft]

Aside: Why do you and B seem to resist the notionof free trade with Cuba? Prosperity is making China less totalitarian, and giving it a burgeoning middle class.

That's the meme about China, isn't it? I'm skeptical.

Isn't prosperity leads to freedom one of the cornerstones of conservatism?

I'm a registered Democrat.

 

[Mycroft]

So in your mind no trade or travel should be allowed with almost any part of the Middle East, most of Africa and half of Asia?

For Cuba, tourism creates support for their system. That's not true in the Middle East.

 

[Zep]

[re Travelling to Cuba] Yes except for the "all legal" part -- it's a felony.

Hmmm... Here's what the State Dept has to say about travelling to Cuba:

CUBA - *Passport and visa required. For specific requirements, consult the Cuban Interests Section, 2630 16th St., NW, Washington, DC 20009 (202/797-8518). HIV test required for those staying longer than 90 days. Attention: U.S. citizens need a U.S. Treasury Department license in order to engage in any transactions related to travel to and within Cuba (this includes the use of U.S. currency). Before planning any travel to Cuba, U.S. citizens should contact the Licensing Division, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of Treasury, (202/622-2480) or on the Internet at www.treas.gov/ofac

Seems it's OK by them after all...as long as you don't want to set up shop there.

 

[Kerberos]

For Cuba, tourism creates support for their system.

Do you have any logic or evidence to support this notion, and by extension the notion that the embargo weakens Castro?

 

[CFLarsen]

For Cuba, tourism creates support for their system. That's not true in the Middle East.

Could you list the countries that you consider the Middle East?

 

[BPSCG]

How dare you deliberately lie about the facts. Hong Kong has been a major trade center for ages, and had numerous trade partners. It did not need China. Israel rceives more aid from the U.S. government than all of Africa combined. We shut off Cuba from the outside world altogether for twelve years.

Please, stop your lies.

You just named two regions that get a $%^&load of money from the United States, and you want to use them to "prove" that you don't need US trade to survive?

Remember...We're not just talking about "you can't go through the drive-through at Burger King." This means no US products, no companies that do business in the US (or want to), nada.

Oh, goodie, a twofer.

For ImaginalDisc: Please show any statement I have made that is a lie. I did not state that Hong Kong had no trade partners. I did not state that Israel received no aid from the U.S.

For both of you: My point wasn't that trade with the U.S. isn't beneficial; hell, everyone wants to trade with the U.S. (well, maybe excepting NK). My point was that almost every country has some built-in disadvantage. Now, you can claim that disadvantage is all that's standing between you and The Good Life, as the Castro apologists here are doing, or you can overcome those advantages, as Hong Kong, Israel, and many other countries have done.

Yes, Israel gets lots of military aid from the U.S. But Cuba got lots of military aid from the USSR for years and years (until the USSR decided it had enough of its own problems and stopped pouring money into Castro's sinkhole), and it had a relative advantage over Israel of having a temperate climate and soil rich enough that you could probably stick a baseball bat in it and it would sprout, while Israel is a stinking desert. Castro doesn't have to build a wall around his country to keep his neighbors from shooting missiles into Havana, and doesn't have to maintain a huge standing army to fend off an invasion from the combined forces of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Mexico. In short, Cuba has some advantages vis a vis Israel, and some disadvantages.

Same thing with Cuba vs. Hong Kong.
And Taiwan.
And Malaysia.
And Indonesia.
And...

But you latch on to one disadvantage Cuba has and claim that if just this one thing were eliminated, Cuba would be prosperous and happy and enjoying The Good Life.

Do you really believe that?

Can you show me any communist country that was ever prosperous and happy and enjoying The Good Life? Even those that the U.S. did trade with?

 

[Lurker]

Hmmm... Here's what the State Dept has to say about travelling to Cuba:Seems it's OK by them after all...as long as you don't want to set up shop there.

What are you talking about? It is illegal to travel to Cuba. My parents did it, but had to go through Canada to do so and had to keep quiet about it to the US govt.

If travel to Cuba is legal, why are there no flights to Cuba?

AM I misunderstanding what you were trying to say?

Lurker

 

[President Bush]

Can you show me any communist country that was ever prosperous and happy and enjoying The Good Life? Even those that the U.S. did trade with?

Cue Jeopardy! theme.

 

[BPSCG]

OK, let's see:

1) Communism sucks.

2) Castro is a poopoohead.

OK, all clear now? I seriously doubt anybody on this threat disagrees with either of theese points so can you let go of this pathetic red hearing now?

No. Because it is not a red herring.

You apparently missed what I said earlier about communism being the greatest wealth-destroying machine the world has ever known, because if you hadn't, you wouldn't be so cavalierly dismissing the argument that Cuba's ills are primarily because it is hitched to a catastrophic economic system.

Let me see if I can make it clearer:

The first principle of communism is human slavery. That is what, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" means. It is not rooted in the Judeo-Christian concept of helping those less fortunate than ourselves when we can; it does not mean helping a panhandler with spare change when you have it, it does not mean writing a check for a homeless shelter, it does not mean providing a social safety net for those in society unable to care for themselves. It means the State decides what everyone needs, and takes away from those who have, and gives to those who have not, at the point of a gun, if you resist.

It means that the product of your work does not belong to you. It belongs to the State, to redistribute as it sees fit. In this country, we call forcing someone to work for someone else's benefit "slavery."

In the U.S., we once enslaved a race of men and women, and we are still paying a terrible price for that crime 140 years after its destruction. How much greater a crime is it to enslave an entire country?

No man willingly becomes a slave; as Lincoln said, when he heard someone speak favorably of slavery, he longed to see it tried out on the speaker for a while, to see what he thought of it then. So what happens when you turn an entire country into a slave, when you tell everyone that what they own does not belong to them, that they are not working for themselves, but for the State, euphemistically called "the common good?"

What happens is you get rebellion. It may take the form of armed insurrection, which usually gets put down brutally, or strikes, which also get put down just as brutally (Google "Stalin" and "collectivization"), and then, after the armed rebels and the strikers have all been killed, rebellion in the form of working not one iota harder than the man with the gun pointed at you requires. For what is the point of working if you can't keep what you create? In the old Soviet Union, there was the wisecrack factory workers would make: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

And that is why Cuba is poor today. Saying Cuba's ills are due to the embargo is nonsense. And your pro-forma acknowledgement that "okay, okay, communism is bad, now let's get back to the real reason that Cuba is poor," isn't fooling anyone. You either don't understand why communism is a wealth-destroying machine, or you are, despite your protestations to the contrary, an apologist for communism. You are like the guy who's been told his house's foundation is leaky and crumbling and his walls are infested with termites, who says, "Yeah, yeah, I know, the foundation stinks and termites are awful, but the real problem is the dripping faucet in the kitchen."

 

[Zep]

What are you talking about? It is illegal to travel to Cuba. My parents did it, but had to go through Canada to do so and had to keep quiet about it to the US govt.

If travel to Cuba is legal, why are there no flights to Cuba?

AM I misunderstanding what you were trying to say?

Lurker

OK, OK! Keep your shirt on!

I'm just finding it difficult to locate anything "USA official" that actually says that US citizens are not specifically permitted to visit Cuba. Clearly I, and Google, are missing the location of that info...

As I pointed out, and other sites seem to confirm, US residents can actually go to Cuba...with a proviso. Some obscure section of the US Department of the Treasury seems to need to hand out "licenses" to US citizens to permit them to go. However, the latest details I read said under 10,000 such licenses were issued last year. Meanwhile some 250,000 US citizens visited Cuba in that same period, but I doubt that 240,000 people have been jailed or even prosecuted as a result of this "illegal act". What conclusions can be drawn from that?

What is clear, as you say, is that there are no direct flights permitted from the USA to Cuba. However I'm sure that many Canadians here can tell us about the roaring trade in "through-flights" from the USA to Canada to Havana, and back. Ditto Mexico and the Bahamas and the UK. All quite legal and openly advertised, or I'm sure the Homeland Security killjoys would have stopped it by now.

One question I have yet to solve: Are foreign airlines which transit the USA forbidden to fly direct USA-Cuba? After all, the aircraft and airlines are not US property, and are only subject to US rules and regs while in US airspace. Anyone offer any information?

The silly thing is, as I understand it for citizens of any other country, we're not forbidden to go to Cuba. Only our flights are problematic, as the USA is the biggest and closest air-hub to that country.

 

[varwoche]

I'm just finding it difficult to locate anything "USA official" that actually says that US citizens are not specifically permitted to visit Cuba. Clearly I, and Google, are missing the location of that info...

See post #47.

 

[Nova Land]

Much of what I know about the world comes from comic books. In the case of travel to Cuba I don't have any comic book references, but would mention Phil Och's song "Ballad of William Worthy" and Lia Matera's novel Havana Twist (both of which I enjoyed and recommend).

No time to look up more carefully, but here is brief item on William Worthy.

... A conscientious objector during World War II, Worthy entered journalism and initially tangled with the U.S. government after traveling to off-limits China in 1956 to report for the New York Post, The Afro-American Newspaper and CBS News.

His passport was seized, but he kept moving ahead, winning a Nieman Fellowship at Harvard, a Ford Foundation grant and freedom-of-the-press awards in the 1950s. He worked in the United States and traveled to Latin America and Cuba (no passport required) to report and help produce the well-known ABC-TV documentary Yanki No! and to cover the Castro revolution.

It was from Cuba that Worthy returned to Miami in 1961, where he was detained, questioned and then, six months later, arrested and sentenced to jail for re-entering the United States without a passport, technically a violation of the McCarthy-era McCarran Act. But in a noted civil liberties court decision, Worthy beat the jail rap...

And here is a brief but somewhat more recent (October 19, 2003) blog item regarding legality of traveling to Cuba which quotes Joe Garcis, executive director of the Cuban American National Foundation:

"President Bush, in a move that has galvanized the travel tour industry and those who support a more liberal policy toward Cuba, has announced a tightening of restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba, which are a part of the long-standing trade embargo against the Castro government," ms_sue_collins writes. "The president plans to crack down on what he labeled 'deception' on the part of many sponsors of humanitarian and educational trips to Cuba. He also announced that the Department of Homeland Security will now track illegal American travel to Cuba from third countries. The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign assets Control will soon hold hearings for Americans accused of travel violations; they will be given the choice of an administrative trial or paying $1,000 for each charge..."

 

[Kerberos]

No. Because it is not a red herring.

Yes it is,

You apparently missed what I said earlier about communism being the greatest wealth-destroying machine the world has ever known, because if you hadn't, you wouldn't be so cavalierly dismissing the argument that Cuba's ills are primarily because it is hitched to a catastrophic economic system.

As I recall you siad it was the second greatest after war, something that's probably largely true. The problem is that while it is almost certainly true that Idoitic economic policies hurts the Cubans more than idiotic embargoes, that doesn't magically make the harm from the embargo go away and the embargo is the topic of this thread. If you want to start a thread about how communism and Castro is bad feel free. I'll even join the thread and post "Yes" and "amen" after each of you posts attacking Castro or communism, but I seriously doubt that such a thread is going to generate much controversy because no one, or at least very few, will deny such an obvious fact.

Let me see if I can make it clearer:

The first principle of communism is human slavery. That is what, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" means. It is not rooted in the Judeo-Christian concept of helping those less fortunate than ourselves when we can; it does not mean helping a panhandler with spare change when you have it, it does not mean writing a check for a homeless shelter, it does not mean providing a social safety net for those in society unable to care for themselves. It means the State decides what everyone needs, and takes away from those who have, and gives to those who have not, at the point of a gun, if you resist.

It means that the product of your work does not belong to you. It belongs to the State, to redistribute as it sees fit. In this country, we call forcing someone to work for someone else's benefit "slavery."

In the U.S., we once enslaved a race of men and women, and we are still paying a terrible price for that crime 140 years after its destruction. How much greater a crime is it to enslave an entire country?

No man willingly becomes a slave; as Lincoln said, when he heard someone speak favorably of slavery, he longed to see it tried out on the speaker for a while, to see what he thought of it then. So what happens when you turn an entire country into a slave, when you tell everyone that what they own does not belong to them, that they are not working for themselves, but for the State, euphemistically called "the common good?"

What happens is you get rebellion. It may take the form of armed insurrection, which usually gets put down brutally, or strikes, which also get put down just as brutally (Google "Stalin" and "collectivization"), and then, after the armed rebels and the strikers have all been killed, rebellion in the form of working not one iota harder than the man with the gun pointed at you requires. For what is the point of working if you can't keep what you create? In the old Soviet Union, there was the wisecrack factory workers would make: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

Would you prefer a yes or an amen in response to this? Though I must admit I still don't undestand where the passion comes from concidering you've clearly stated you total lack of concern for the welfare of Cubans.

And that is why Cuba is poor today. Saying Cuba's ills are due to the embargo is nonsense.

Good thing I never did say that then, something I have made quite clear on this thread and on the last one.

And your pro-forma acknowledgement that "okay, okay, communism is bad, now let's get back to the real reason that Cuba is poor," isn't fooling anyone.

I'm so sorry for stiking to the topic of the thread.

You either don't understand why communism is a wealth-destroying machine, or you are, despite your protestations to the contrary, an apologist for communism. You are like the guy who's been told his house's foundation is leaky and crumbling and his walls are infested with termites, who says, "Yeah, yeah, I know, the foundation stinks and termites are awful, but the real problem is the dripping faucet in the kitchen."

You might want to perfect that mind reading technique before you apply for the million.

Now if I may repeat my questions:

1) Given that tourism worldwide has increased significantly since the embargo started, and assuming that the embargo does hurt the Cuban tourist industry do you think that Cubans will build enough new hotels to meet:

a) The actual Embargo adjusted demand for Cuban hotels?

or

b) The demand for Cuban hotels that would have existed in the absence of an embargo?

If a go to question 2, if b go to question 3.

2) If you aknowledge that supply adjust to demand, why do you insist that there should be aditional vacansies in Cuban hotels? Profound ignorance of economics? Deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? Non-deliberate obtuseness in order to avoid admiting you're wrong? An impresive ability to hold 2 mutaually exclusive notions in you head?

3) Could you share the groundbreaking economic theory that allows you to reach this consclusion? When will you publish? Can you invite me to the Nobel Prize ceremony when you get it?

4) do you aknowledge that vacations and cigars are non-generic goods?

5) Do you aknowledge that embargoes have an effect on non-generic goods?

6) Who do you imagine should fill the tourist gap left by 280 million Americans? The 33 million Canadians? Or do you imagine that rich Europeans will totally disregard the aditional travel costs and inconvinience and replace every potential US tourist instead og going to Spain, Italie or Greece?

7) Is there any chance you'll actually answer these questions or do you prefer to continue deploying red hearings, quoting out of context, molest basic economic theory and all around avoid the issue?

Though I supose you've already answered question 7.