A photo of the White House with a KFC restaurant on it was circulating on the Internet, which was attributed to Miami's Cubanazo Right-wingers. This image has been interpreted, correctly, as a racist image.
KFC is very popular with Cuban-Americans. When I was growing up, a trip to KFC was like dinner at "The Four Seasons" restaurant in New York.
"Banning Books in Miami," (Editorial) The New York Times, February 11, 2009, p. A30.
"Schools are supposed to introduce children to a variety of ideas and viewpoints. [The] Miami-Dade School Board decided a few years ago to put one viewpoint off limits. It banned the children's book 'A Visit to Cuba' from its school libraries because it said the book offers too positive a portrait of life under the Castro regime. That was bad enough, but then last week, a federal appeals court upheld the ban. The Supreme Court should reverse this disturbing ruling."
Controversial materials in school libraries -- also freedom of speech in classrooms -- are essential ingredients of a good education. I am certain that appreciating the First Amendment must begin in schools. Ever since the Piko decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with this notion -- for the most part. This appreciation requires that children be exposed to diverse, conflicting, controversial points of view, understanding their rights to accept, reject, discuss or analyze all sides of contested issues freely. The key word being "freely."
Most people will not attend law schools or take a full university course in First Amendment law. However, every American should have some appreciation of the ideas and values underlying America's controversial commitment to freedom of expression and conscience. This magnificent and still revolutionary national commitment is the essential principle of U.S. democracy. You do not underscore your differences with so-called "totalitarian" regimes by censoring dissidents or those with whom you disagree because you have the power to do so in Miami or New Jersey. One way to demonstrate what we say that we believe in America is by inviting disagreement and free discussion of rival points of view.
Any letters deleted from words in this essay so far? I am still obstructed from accessing my writings at Critique. The American Constitutional vision -- this is a matter of daily struggle and always will be -- suggests that individuals have a zone of spiritual-intellectual life that must be protected from intervention by government. You may believe or think what you like. You have the right to say what you please concerning political issues, religious questions, beliefs or atheism, without fear of government. This includes persons with controversial or minority radical views or philosophies, even (gasp!) "Communists." ("Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")
Justice Holmes famously relied on the "market" of opinion to weed out false views and "select" among opinions those that are most successful. These metaphors feel dated since the collapse of social Darwinism and brutal capitalism. Nevertheless, the crux of the principle that opinions and ideas must fend for themselves in the give and take of societal dialectics still stands.
I am not troubled at defending my views. Criticism is O.K. Suppression, harassment, destruction of any forms of political or philosophical speech is not O.K. -- in fact, censorship is a crime, expecially when state action is involved. ("How Censorship Works in America.")
My opinion of the underlying basis for enshrining freedom of expression in the Constitution is that this concept is interrelated with our American belief in the dignity of each person as well as democratic principles. By virtue of your humanity, you deserve that your values and beliefs along with their expression be respected. Not only is fallibilism a rationale for free speech, but (more fundamentally) principles of alterity (meaning rights of the Other) and recognition, mutual spiritual concern require that the thoughts, values, beliefs and inner of lives of other persons be accorded the toleration (John Locke) that I desire for my own views. ("John Rawls and Justice.")
Everybody favors freedom of speech for oneself and those with whom one agrees. The hard part is to protect the freedom of speech of those we disagree with and/or consider mistaken, stupid, or wrong. Hence, you will not find me advocating censorship of any opinion, however moronic it may be from my perspective for a person to hold any one opinion -- this includes the Cubanazos' efforts to restore the ethos of 1957 in Havana.
You will also not find me hesitant about expressing (or insisting on) protection for expressions of my opinions. Did I mention the hackers and cyberwarfare directed at me from New Jersey's government offices? An American jurisdiction cannot tolerate or encourage public criminality while judging anyone's ethics. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
The best way of making the argument that Cubanoids wish to present to the Revolutionary government in Havana that greater tolerance of dissent in Cuba is appropriate is by demonstrating their own tolerance of disagreement in Miami. Thus far, I have seen very little appreciation of rights of dissent and conscience in Miami's calle ocho. There are at least two views concerning the Cuban Revolution. The solution to disagreement with the opinions or perspectives of the person writing "A Visit to Cuba" is to include in discussions another book with different views.
I wish to point out to those concerned about the lives of artists and eccentrics in Havana that a society that is not threatened is always more tolerant of disagreement than a country that is menaced 24 hours per day by economic embargos and military threats. I deal with a war every day to write and defend my essays. This experience -- after years of what any rational person will describe as psychological torture -- has not filled me with the milk of human kindness. (A word was deleted from the foregoing sentence and restored to the text by me.)
" ... 'A Visit to Cuba' and its Spanish edition, 'Vamos a Cuba,' are part of a series of books for children ages 4 to 8 that introduces them to the geography, customs and daily life of different countries. The Miami-Dade County Public School District had 49 copies in its elementary and middle schools."
"The father of an elementary-school student, complaining that the portrait of Cuba in the book was inaccurate, petitioned to have 'A Visit to Cuba' pulled. The school superintendent denied the petition, but the school board overruled him. The board said it was acting because of inaccuracies and omissions in the book, but Miami's strong anti-Castro political sentiment was undeniably a factor."
Based on my experiences -- this saddens me -- I am convinced that there is a fascist mutation in Cuban-American political culture (and in the population) that is a twisted version of the very evils that many Cuban-Americans claim to oppose. You do not censor the speech of others. You do not hack into someone's computer, alter texts, deface works of art or books because you "don't like" someone, even if you have the political protection that allows you to do such a thing because you will harm America's credibility on free speech issues. Much less should you do such a thing -- censor any form of speech -- because you disagree with a person's opinions. To speak of bringing democracy and freedom to others, after engaging in censorship, is absurd.
Persons given secret power over others, or control of speech, will abuse that power or control. Worse, we have learned from Zimbardo and Milgram, that they will enjoy hurting, manipulating, or controlling others. Sure enough, the ACLU sued on the grounds that this was censorship, content-based, involving state action, clearly prohibited by the First Amendment.
I am aware of the ages of the children involved. However, the singling out of one book dealing with Cuba out of a series that was otherwise acceptable suggests or reveals a political motive. Worse, is to teach children the opposite of the lesson necessary in a democracy. Tolerance, tolerance of diversity of points of view is what we want those children to learn early in their lives.
After winning at the District Court level, a federal Circuit Court in Atlanta (Republican appointees?) deemed the removal of the book just fine, deciding against the original Plaintiffs. This case should go to the U.S. Supreme Court where I am confident that even Justices Scalia and Thomas will agree that free speech prohibits governmental removal of books from school libraries based on "controversial" ideas and opinions. Any ideas or opinions in books -- including, I was shocked to learn this -- the Harry Potter books (?!) may be "controversial."
The counterargument will focus on the age group of the intended readers and society's obligation to act in locus parentis ("in the place of parents") for school children. There is no allegation that disgusting child porn was found in this book. Unlike the computers of New Jersey's legislators and (probably) judges, which are filled with illegal materials, no child is tortured in this text, apparently, nor are sexual acts involving children depicted in this work.
Neil M. Cohen, Esq., of the New Jersey Legislature and Bar Association's Ethics Committee will be disappointed. Such actions and depictions violate child safety laws -- as do many N.J. politicians and legal officials -- and are irrelevant to this discussion. ("Neil M. Cohen, Esq. and Conduct Unbecoming to the Legislature in New Jersey.")
Schools are places where academic freedom and protection of free communication of ideas are vital. It is unwise to teach children to disregard some opinions that are placed beyond the pale of discussion for unexplained reasons. Besides, geography in most places in the world is usually non-political, even as descriptions of landscapes are not easily seen as controversial. To suggest that there are palm trees in Cuba should be possible for both Communists and Cubanazos.
"The Supreme Court should not let this ruling stand. School boards have some discretion about what books to place in school libraries. The First Amendment does not, however, allow them to suppress political viewpoints."
Stereotypes are a two-way street. I have experienced being stereotyped. For this reason, I am profoundly offended by malevolent uses of such racist images, especially as regards African-Americans, who are typically belittled by racist stereotypes in the shopping malls and baseball fields of Miami's Cubanoid neighborhoods.
What do you think, Senator Bob? "On the one hand, but on the other hand."
Showing posts with label Cubanoid-Fascism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cubanoid-Fascism. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
American Hypocrisy and Luis Posada Carriles.
If you are interested in Cuba, stay away from Miami's gangsters and visit:
http://www.revolutionbooksnyc.org/
January 18, 2009 at 4:05 P.M. Hours of obstructions and cyberharassment make it impossible for me to write at my MSN group, Critique. I cannot say whether essays have been vandalized. I am sad and surprised to discover that ideas that I set forth and defended in reviewing the original Shaft movie were, I believe, PLAGIARIZED in today's article by Manohla Dargis & A.O. Scott, "How the Movies Made a President," in The New York Times, January 18, 2009, at p. 1 ("Arts & Leisure"). ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
I received no acknowledgment, despite the "copyright" and "all rights reserved" notice in my MSN group. How can any journalist be a part of censorship and plagiarism? The New York Times?! Furthermore, I believe Ms. Dargis visited my sites to read my comments on her work in "The Reader': A Movie Review" and "'Revolutionary Road': A Movie Review."
How can someone "like" Ms. Dargis write for The New York Times? Politics? What is the true identity of Ms. Dargis? Ginger Thompson? Bob Menendez? I wonder whether these persons know Daniel Mendelsohn whose essay reviewing "Brideshead Revisited is so similar to mine. ("'Brideshead Revisited': A Mocie Review.")
You need not acknowledge or respect the creative or intellectual work of someone you consider sub-human, according to the Times. You can even plagiarize and try to destroy that person's work because you feel no need to accord to the author the minimal respect to which every person is entitled. Those members of minority groups (like me) who have the temerity to write well or freely need not be accorded due consideration. Under the circumstances, talk directed at me of free speech or ethics is absurd. I am blocking, among other hackers:
http://www.msnusers.com/common/js/1576564590... (NJ?)
If MSN Groups continues to exist and other users can access Critique, assuming that my copyright-protected essays are not being altered, I urge readers to continue to see my work there.
Luis Posada Carriles is an anti-Castro Right-winger, alleged terrorist and sadist.
January 28, 2009 at 12:15 P.M. An attack on my computer connections, disabling my security system, resulted in destroying my child's Internet connection, I believe, also defacing and vandalizing a number of essays -- like this one and others. I will struggle to make the necessary corrections and provide assistance to my child. My opinions and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution have not changed.
January 27, 2009 at 11:03 A.M. My cable signal has been blocked, illegally, and I cannot access my home e-mail account. I suspect that someone did not like this essay. I will continue to struggle to post this work and to write on-line. This censorship and intimidation campaign is unconstitutional and criminal. Regardless of what you think of my opinions, this sort of brutality cannot be allowed to prevail in a free society.
Simon Romero & Damien Cave, "Venezuela Will Push U.S. to Hand Over Man Tied to Plane Bombing," The New York Times, January 23, 2009, at p. A5. ("Damien Cave" suggests that someone has been reading Herman Hesse.)
Jim Holt, "New York Has Become a World Capital of Philosophy," in New York, December 22-29, 2008, at p. 72. (" ... and there's even a sprinkling of Hegelians, Nietzscheans, and phenomenologists at the New School.")
Emily Nussbaum, "Choosing The Gray Lady," in New York, January 19-26, 2009, at p. 28. (Young turks at the Times are not averse to doing "favors" for powerful politicians, allegedly.)
Luis Posada Carriles is sought by the Venezuelan government as a naturalized citizen of that country for acts of terrorism, including the downing of a Cuban civilian airliner with 73 passengers on board. All of the innocent persons travelling on that plane were killed. Their photos appear below. (No images can be posted at blogger because of damage to my computer caused by hackers.) The U.S. government protected Mr. Posada Carriles, as a former C.I.A. agent (allegedly), who was part of the agency's "exploding cigar" efforts against Fidel Castro.
"Mr. Posada, 80, is charged ... with masterminding the bombing of a Cubana Airlines plane as it flew over Barbados, killing all 73 people on board, including dozens of Cuban civilians and a 9-year-old Guyanese girl. It was the Western Hemisphere's first act of midair terrorism, the bloodiest of a series of bombings aimed at weakening Fidel Castro's government."
The U.S. government has taken a radical position against world terrorism, inviting the cooperation of other countries, ostensibly, to punish all terrorists for their crimes. Mr. Posada Carriles happens to be a Right-wing terrorist, allegedly, living happily in Miami, while painting landscapes for a living. This does not sound like a sufficiently macho job for a super anti-Communist. The persons whose lives ended when that airplane fell to earth will not be living into old age, like Posada-Carriles, nor will they enjoy looking at paintings.
Victims' relatives are not concerned about Mr. Posada Carriles' politics or views of Fidel Castro. However, they are disturbed by the hypocrisy of the U.S. government that shelters this man from liability, reportedly, or even from being tried for these heinous offenses. It is impossible to believe that such a man will bring democracy or freedom to any country. Does the N.J. Supreme Court or legal establishment (Senator Bob?) consider Mr. Posada Carriles "ethical" whereas I am not? If so, then I must disagree. ("Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?")
The first "error" inserted in this text since my previous review of the work has been discovered and corrected. This may explain the disabling of my security updating system recently. No doubt other essays have been similarly vandalized by Miami's champions of the "American way of life."
If the concern is that Mr. Posada Carriles will be tortured in Venezuela or Cuba (like persons in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib) -- if he is returned to either country, Cuban and non-Cuban citizens were among his victims -- then there is nothing to prevent a trial in American federal courts applying international human rights law or Florida criminal law. There are precedents for U.S. courts applying foreign substantive laws, usually in civil cases. Murder laws are pretty much the same all over the world. Murder is a crime even when victims are residents of Communist countries. Preventing me from speaking or accessing the Internet does not change this reality. (The foregoing sentence was altered. I have now restored the deleted word to that sentence.)
Mr. Posada Carriles was photographed visiting U.S. federal courts on a prior occasion. (Images may be blocked by New Jersey's Cubanoids.)
The main reason that Mr. Posada Carriles and his ilk have escaped liability, so far, is an alleged affiliation with Cuban-American politicians, like New Jersey's Senator Robert "Bob" Menendez. ("Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?") Also, Big "Mel" Martinez, former Florida Republicano Senator, is an alleged "friend" of these paramilitary anti-Castro groups. This is something I can neither confirm nor deny at this time. Mr. Menendez has issued a press release stating that he is "for all the people." Is Ginger Thompson of the Times is related to Manohla Dargis? See what purports to be the English language article, Ginger Thompson, "Couple's Capitol Ties Said to Veil Spying for Cuba," in The New York Times, June 19, 2009, at p. 1. (Ms. Thompson's creative use of the English language defies description by me.)
I wonder whether Ginger Thompson and Manohla Dargis are "friends"? Or are they the same person? Jean Paul Rathbone? Do you wish to delete a word from one of my sentences, again?
Have either of those men, Menendez or Martinez -- whether directly or indirectly -- received political contributions in any manner from Mr. Posada Carriles and/or any organization espousing anti-Castro views that has opposed extradition of Mr. Posada Carriles? If so, then should these Senators and other Cuban-American politicians not refrain from taking any stand (publicly or privately) concerning this extradition request, in order to preserve the appearance at least of disinterested decision-making with regard to such matters on the part of the federal judiciary and Congress? I suspect so. ("Menendez" has been changed several times to "Memendez.")
Radical Right-wing Cubanazos have been rumored to engage in organized crime in order to collect funds for their anti-Castro efforts. I suspect that organized crime by any groups is about collecting funds for themselves.
Realistically, I doubt that Mr. Posada Carriles will be extradited by the U.S. or charged with any crimes that bear a rational relationship to his alleged actions. I am aware of his legal experiences and charges in Louisiana. This absolution will have the effect of diminishing or destroying U.S. credibility on terrorism throughout the world by making it clear to everyone that Americans have a double standard depending on the political views of the terrorists in question or the identities of their victims. This essay usually produces either a death threat or interference with my computer's cable signal. ("Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security!" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!")
Right-wing anti-Castro forces or quasi-military groups operate with impunity -- or with the assistance of corrupt politicians in places like New Jersey -- who then censor Constitutionally protected speech, like my blogs, whereas all Arab political groups and Leftist intellectuals, as well as activists, can count on harassment and worse from "protected goons" serving in New Jersey's legislature or judiciary. Is this "ethical," Mr. Menendez?
Forty minutes of harassment preceded my writing efforts today. Cyberattacks have mostly damaged my family members' efforts to make use of Internet resources. About one out of fifty hits at my blogs are counted. I am illegally prevented from accessing MSN groups. My books are suppressed in America. I am plagiarized and denied publication opportunities. I understand that my writings are being read outside the U.S. and, especially, in Cuba and China. I am grateful for this attention.
My second book, specifically, is suppressed and not sent to on-line booksellers, even as I am still prohibited from accessing MSN groups, every morning, if that site still exists. These censorship and suppression efforts are made possible by state action and are, I believe, content-based. I wonder whether there is a "connection" to Ms. Dargis from the Cuban-American community?
My response to the continuing harassment and insertions of "errors" is a long awaited essay on further corruption in the Garden State. The opinion of Mr. Posada-Carriles concerning my "ethics" does not trouble me. I say the same concerning the views of Mr. Menendez. ("Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?" and "Senator Bob Struggles to Find His conscience.")
All Cuban-American politicians -- including the befuddled Congresswoman from Miami who hung up on President Obama, Iliana Ross-Lehtinen ("Who knew it was really him calling little-old-me?") -- are expected to anounce publicly, on a daily basis, that they are "against Communism" and in favor of "censorship-of-socialist-weird-people-who-refuse-to-live-in-Miami-or-Miami-Beach." ("Is Senator Menendez a Suspect in Mafia-Political Murder in New Jersey?")
Among the likely co-conspirators are "Lincoln" Diaz Balart, former Florida politician and "firebrand" in the "struggle against Communism" and friends, like "Jose" Diaz-Balart, who is a less intelligent version of Lincoln Diaz-Balart. That's not saying much, Jose. It should sadden you to think that the name "Lincoln" can be attached to any kind of suppression of freedoms or to the persons who favor such totalitarianism, allegedly.
I am afraid that the category of "weird" persons includes me, according to many Cubanazos and Cubanazas. Here is a gold medallion for you, plastic covers for the couch, and a nice Guayavera. These are unisex items. Mazeltov. (Again: "Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!")
Congresswoman Ross-Lehtinen favors the death penalty for Communists, allegedly, also for liberals and advocates for the environment and/or persons adopting non-traditional lifestyles. Ms. Ross-Lehtinen is undecided concerning the possible execution of Jon Stewart and Bill Maher as well as other liberal commentators and/or "Godless, pinko, semi-Communists!" (Well, she had to be right about something!)
The Congresswoman is not on record as favoring the extradition of Mr. Posada Carriles, despite the heinous crimes alleged against him. Is the Congresswoman getting soft on criminals? Does Ms. Ross-Lehtinen's attitude to criminals depend on the criminal's politics? ("And How!")
Pictures of dozens killed who are only some of the alleged victims of Mr. Posada Carriles' "activities" are available on-line. The response from the Cuban-American community in Union City and Miami has been amused indifference: "Boys will be boys ..." said one promiment politician from West New York, New Jersey -- who is, perhaps, a former gym teacher. Mr. Albio Sires is rumored to have insisted that opposing candidates "drop and do fifty pushups!" This is a man we need in the U.S. Congress.
The terror victims' family members did not laugh merrily over this alleged display of humor and wit.
I am told that someone called "Leslie Martinez," Cubanaza-Republicana and advocate (allegedly) of "public executions" and "conspicuous consumption" in the vicinity of the University of Miami, insisted that we "must get tough on crime," but not on "alleged" Right-wing Cuban-American criminals or terrorists, since (allegedly) they are not Communists, or Arabs. Shopping, Leslie? Let me guess: You live in Coral Gables?
I am sure that Ms. Martinez is "for" the First Amendment and all Constitutional rights for persons like herself. I wonder whether Ms. Martinez knows "Manohla Dargis"? ("What is it like to be plagiarized?") Perhaps Jim Holt has also met Ms. Dargis and/or Benedict Carey, Ginger Thompson maybe?
Mr. Holt appears to be dismissive of the "sprinkling" of phenomenologists and hermeneuticists who constitute a large portion of students of Western thought in the world, whether in Latin America, Europe or Asia. They are not analytical philosophers or American pragmatists. Hence, there is no need to take such philosophies (or philosophers) seriously. Right, Jim? Jim has been to Columbia University. This entitles Jim to explain such things to the rest of us. Isn't that right, Mr. Holt?
Attacks against this essay and all essays at my sites will be constant. Chinese philosophers are in need of Mr. Holt's instruction, along with those lesser persons (like myself) who presume to contribute to phenomenological-hermeneutics because, naively, we believe that this theoretical approach is vital and important today. A collection of essays dealing with China's enagement with phenomenology-hermeneutics and Marxism is available. I suggest a glance at Derrida's Specters of Marx.
Is it possible that any journalist at The New York Times would be a part of censorship and suppressions of speech efforts? I can only hope that no writer would contribute to such criminality.
http://www.revolutionbooksnyc.org/
January 18, 2009 at 4:05 P.M. Hours of obstructions and cyberharassment make it impossible for me to write at my MSN group, Critique. I cannot say whether essays have been vandalized. I am sad and surprised to discover that ideas that I set forth and defended in reviewing the original Shaft movie were, I believe, PLAGIARIZED in today's article by Manohla Dargis & A.O. Scott, "How the Movies Made a President," in The New York Times, January 18, 2009, at p. 1 ("Arts & Leisure"). ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
I received no acknowledgment, despite the "copyright" and "all rights reserved" notice in my MSN group. How can any journalist be a part of censorship and plagiarism? The New York Times?! Furthermore, I believe Ms. Dargis visited my sites to read my comments on her work in "The Reader': A Movie Review" and "'Revolutionary Road': A Movie Review."
How can someone "like" Ms. Dargis write for The New York Times? Politics? What is the true identity of Ms. Dargis? Ginger Thompson? Bob Menendez? I wonder whether these persons know Daniel Mendelsohn whose essay reviewing "Brideshead Revisited is so similar to mine. ("'Brideshead Revisited': A Mocie Review.")
You need not acknowledge or respect the creative or intellectual work of someone you consider sub-human, according to the Times. You can even plagiarize and try to destroy that person's work because you feel no need to accord to the author the minimal respect to which every person is entitled. Those members of minority groups (like me) who have the temerity to write well or freely need not be accorded due consideration. Under the circumstances, talk directed at me of free speech or ethics is absurd. I am blocking, among other hackers:
http://www.msnusers.com/common/js/1576564590... (NJ?)
If MSN Groups continues to exist and other users can access Critique, assuming that my copyright-protected essays are not being altered, I urge readers to continue to see my work there.
Luis Posada Carriles is an anti-Castro Right-winger, alleged terrorist and sadist.
January 28, 2009 at 12:15 P.M. An attack on my computer connections, disabling my security system, resulted in destroying my child's Internet connection, I believe, also defacing and vandalizing a number of essays -- like this one and others. I will struggle to make the necessary corrections and provide assistance to my child. My opinions and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution have not changed.
January 27, 2009 at 11:03 A.M. My cable signal has been blocked, illegally, and I cannot access my home e-mail account. I suspect that someone did not like this essay. I will continue to struggle to post this work and to write on-line. This censorship and intimidation campaign is unconstitutional and criminal. Regardless of what you think of my opinions, this sort of brutality cannot be allowed to prevail in a free society.
Simon Romero & Damien Cave, "Venezuela Will Push U.S. to Hand Over Man Tied to Plane Bombing," The New York Times, January 23, 2009, at p. A5. ("Damien Cave" suggests that someone has been reading Herman Hesse.)
Jim Holt, "New York Has Become a World Capital of Philosophy," in New York, December 22-29, 2008, at p. 72. (" ... and there's even a sprinkling of Hegelians, Nietzscheans, and phenomenologists at the New School.")
Emily Nussbaum, "Choosing The Gray Lady," in New York, January 19-26, 2009, at p. 28. (Young turks at the Times are not averse to doing "favors" for powerful politicians, allegedly.)
Luis Posada Carriles is sought by the Venezuelan government as a naturalized citizen of that country for acts of terrorism, including the downing of a Cuban civilian airliner with 73 passengers on board. All of the innocent persons travelling on that plane were killed. Their photos appear below. (No images can be posted at blogger because of damage to my computer caused by hackers.) The U.S. government protected Mr. Posada Carriles, as a former C.I.A. agent (allegedly), who was part of the agency's "exploding cigar" efforts against Fidel Castro.
"Mr. Posada, 80, is charged ... with masterminding the bombing of a Cubana Airlines plane as it flew over Barbados, killing all 73 people on board, including dozens of Cuban civilians and a 9-year-old Guyanese girl. It was the Western Hemisphere's first act of midair terrorism, the bloodiest of a series of bombings aimed at weakening Fidel Castro's government."
The U.S. government has taken a radical position against world terrorism, inviting the cooperation of other countries, ostensibly, to punish all terrorists for their crimes. Mr. Posada Carriles happens to be a Right-wing terrorist, allegedly, living happily in Miami, while painting landscapes for a living. This does not sound like a sufficiently macho job for a super anti-Communist. The persons whose lives ended when that airplane fell to earth will not be living into old age, like Posada-Carriles, nor will they enjoy looking at paintings.
Victims' relatives are not concerned about Mr. Posada Carriles' politics or views of Fidel Castro. However, they are disturbed by the hypocrisy of the U.S. government that shelters this man from liability, reportedly, or even from being tried for these heinous offenses. It is impossible to believe that such a man will bring democracy or freedom to any country. Does the N.J. Supreme Court or legal establishment (Senator Bob?) consider Mr. Posada Carriles "ethical" whereas I am not? If so, then I must disagree. ("Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?")
The first "error" inserted in this text since my previous review of the work has been discovered and corrected. This may explain the disabling of my security updating system recently. No doubt other essays have been similarly vandalized by Miami's champions of the "American way of life."
If the concern is that Mr. Posada Carriles will be tortured in Venezuela or Cuba (like persons in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib) -- if he is returned to either country, Cuban and non-Cuban citizens were among his victims -- then there is nothing to prevent a trial in American federal courts applying international human rights law or Florida criminal law. There are precedents for U.S. courts applying foreign substantive laws, usually in civil cases. Murder laws are pretty much the same all over the world. Murder is a crime even when victims are residents of Communist countries. Preventing me from speaking or accessing the Internet does not change this reality. (The foregoing sentence was altered. I have now restored the deleted word to that sentence.)
Mr. Posada Carriles was photographed visiting U.S. federal courts on a prior occasion. (Images may be blocked by New Jersey's Cubanoids.)
The main reason that Mr. Posada Carriles and his ilk have escaped liability, so far, is an alleged affiliation with Cuban-American politicians, like New Jersey's Senator Robert "Bob" Menendez. ("Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?") Also, Big "Mel" Martinez, former Florida Republicano Senator, is an alleged "friend" of these paramilitary anti-Castro groups. This is something I can neither confirm nor deny at this time. Mr. Menendez has issued a press release stating that he is "for all the people." Is Ginger Thompson of the Times is related to Manohla Dargis? See what purports to be the English language article, Ginger Thompson, "Couple's Capitol Ties Said to Veil Spying for Cuba," in The New York Times, June 19, 2009, at p. 1. (Ms. Thompson's creative use of the English language defies description by me.)
I wonder whether Ginger Thompson and Manohla Dargis are "friends"? Or are they the same person? Jean Paul Rathbone? Do you wish to delete a word from one of my sentences, again?
Have either of those men, Menendez or Martinez -- whether directly or indirectly -- received political contributions in any manner from Mr. Posada Carriles and/or any organization espousing anti-Castro views that has opposed extradition of Mr. Posada Carriles? If so, then should these Senators and other Cuban-American politicians not refrain from taking any stand (publicly or privately) concerning this extradition request, in order to preserve the appearance at least of disinterested decision-making with regard to such matters on the part of the federal judiciary and Congress? I suspect so. ("Menendez" has been changed several times to "Memendez.")
Radical Right-wing Cubanazos have been rumored to engage in organized crime in order to collect funds for their anti-Castro efforts. I suspect that organized crime by any groups is about collecting funds for themselves.
Realistically, I doubt that Mr. Posada Carriles will be extradited by the U.S. or charged with any crimes that bear a rational relationship to his alleged actions. I am aware of his legal experiences and charges in Louisiana. This absolution will have the effect of diminishing or destroying U.S. credibility on terrorism throughout the world by making it clear to everyone that Americans have a double standard depending on the political views of the terrorists in question or the identities of their victims. This essay usually produces either a death threat or interference with my computer's cable signal. ("Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security!" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!")
Right-wing anti-Castro forces or quasi-military groups operate with impunity -- or with the assistance of corrupt politicians in places like New Jersey -- who then censor Constitutionally protected speech, like my blogs, whereas all Arab political groups and Leftist intellectuals, as well as activists, can count on harassment and worse from "protected goons" serving in New Jersey's legislature or judiciary. Is this "ethical," Mr. Menendez?
Forty minutes of harassment preceded my writing efforts today. Cyberattacks have mostly damaged my family members' efforts to make use of Internet resources. About one out of fifty hits at my blogs are counted. I am illegally prevented from accessing MSN groups. My books are suppressed in America. I am plagiarized and denied publication opportunities. I understand that my writings are being read outside the U.S. and, especially, in Cuba and China. I am grateful for this attention.
My second book, specifically, is suppressed and not sent to on-line booksellers, even as I am still prohibited from accessing MSN groups, every morning, if that site still exists. These censorship and suppression efforts are made possible by state action and are, I believe, content-based. I wonder whether there is a "connection" to Ms. Dargis from the Cuban-American community?
My response to the continuing harassment and insertions of "errors" is a long awaited essay on further corruption in the Garden State. The opinion of Mr. Posada-Carriles concerning my "ethics" does not trouble me. I say the same concerning the views of Mr. Menendez. ("Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?" and "Senator Bob Struggles to Find His conscience.")
All Cuban-American politicians -- including the befuddled Congresswoman from Miami who hung up on President Obama, Iliana Ross-Lehtinen ("Who knew it was really him calling little-old-me?") -- are expected to anounce publicly, on a daily basis, that they are "against Communism" and in favor of "censorship-of-socialist-weird-people-who-refuse-to-live-in-Miami-or-Miami-Beach." ("Is Senator Menendez a Suspect in Mafia-Political Murder in New Jersey?")
Among the likely co-conspirators are "Lincoln" Diaz Balart, former Florida politician and "firebrand" in the "struggle against Communism" and friends, like "Jose" Diaz-Balart, who is a less intelligent version of Lincoln Diaz-Balart. That's not saying much, Jose. It should sadden you to think that the name "Lincoln" can be attached to any kind of suppression of freedoms or to the persons who favor such totalitarianism, allegedly.
I am afraid that the category of "weird" persons includes me, according to many Cubanazos and Cubanazas. Here is a gold medallion for you, plastic covers for the couch, and a nice Guayavera. These are unisex items. Mazeltov. (Again: "Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!")
Congresswoman Ross-Lehtinen favors the death penalty for Communists, allegedly, also for liberals and advocates for the environment and/or persons adopting non-traditional lifestyles. Ms. Ross-Lehtinen is undecided concerning the possible execution of Jon Stewart and Bill Maher as well as other liberal commentators and/or "Godless, pinko, semi-Communists!" (Well, she had to be right about something!)
The Congresswoman is not on record as favoring the extradition of Mr. Posada Carriles, despite the heinous crimes alleged against him. Is the Congresswoman getting soft on criminals? Does Ms. Ross-Lehtinen's attitude to criminals depend on the criminal's politics? ("And How!")
Pictures of dozens killed who are only some of the alleged victims of Mr. Posada Carriles' "activities" are available on-line. The response from the Cuban-American community in Union City and Miami has been amused indifference: "Boys will be boys ..." said one promiment politician from West New York, New Jersey -- who is, perhaps, a former gym teacher. Mr. Albio Sires is rumored to have insisted that opposing candidates "drop and do fifty pushups!" This is a man we need in the U.S. Congress.
The terror victims' family members did not laugh merrily over this alleged display of humor and wit.
I am told that someone called "Leslie Martinez," Cubanaza-Republicana and advocate (allegedly) of "public executions" and "conspicuous consumption" in the vicinity of the University of Miami, insisted that we "must get tough on crime," but not on "alleged" Right-wing Cuban-American criminals or terrorists, since (allegedly) they are not Communists, or Arabs. Shopping, Leslie? Let me guess: You live in Coral Gables?
I am sure that Ms. Martinez is "for" the First Amendment and all Constitutional rights for persons like herself. I wonder whether Ms. Martinez knows "Manohla Dargis"? ("What is it like to be plagiarized?") Perhaps Jim Holt has also met Ms. Dargis and/or Benedict Carey, Ginger Thompson maybe?
Mr. Holt appears to be dismissive of the "sprinkling" of phenomenologists and hermeneuticists who constitute a large portion of students of Western thought in the world, whether in Latin America, Europe or Asia. They are not analytical philosophers or American pragmatists. Hence, there is no need to take such philosophies (or philosophers) seriously. Right, Jim? Jim has been to Columbia University. This entitles Jim to explain such things to the rest of us. Isn't that right, Mr. Holt?
Attacks against this essay and all essays at my sites will be constant. Chinese philosophers are in need of Mr. Holt's instruction, along with those lesser persons (like myself) who presume to contribute to phenomenological-hermeneutics because, naively, we believe that this theoretical approach is vital and important today. A collection of essays dealing with China's enagement with phenomenology-hermeneutics and Marxism is available. I suggest a glance at Derrida's Specters of Marx.
Is it possible that any journalist at The New York Times would be a part of censorship and suppressions of speech efforts? I can only hope that no writer would contribute to such criminality.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)