Willing Accomplices
How the Media Failed Cuba

For years those of us who were born in Cuba or grew up in a Cuban family; have wondered about the media and why they report things on Cuba so differently from the way we hear them at home and from relatives on the island. The American media has for the better part of a century leaned left. This left leaning bent was always interpreted as adhering to more liberal ideologies with respect to government programs and issues of social justice. This was a left leaning bent, we all tolerated and could accept.

The left leaning reporting and manipulation that is going on today however, has long ago crossed over into a completely different territory. While in the past they parroted whatever the talking points were as issued by the Castro regime, now they are running a “hide and deflect” campaign against liberty.

For example, over the first three days of the demonstrations in Cuba I looked at multiple news outlets and how they reported and worded their stories (TV & Websites). There has been a focus on the Covid 19 pandemic, the lack of resources and a significant mention of the so called “US Embargo”. What they failed to say is that the demonstrators were screaming “Down with the dictatorship” and “Libertad”. They were not screaming, “we want vaccines”; they were screaming we want LIBERTY. Many in the public did not get that report in the Media, but why?

Since the early days of “The Cuban Revolution” the American left and the American left leaning media treated Cuba as petri dish for all their hopes an aspiration. Cuba was the example (the testing ground) of all that could be accomplished if we could just try that socialism thing (without the green fatigues and uniforms). The petri dish festered for 62 years, and the observers kept telling us that Cuba had achieved great strides in Medicine and Education. It was all a lie, a very BIG LIE.

For us Cubans the lie started with your esteemed colleague Herbert Matthews of the New York Times in the 1950’s, who did an expose story on the “Robin Hood” who would come down from the mountains and make everything alright in Cuba. Well, he did come down from the mountains and it turned out he was a psychopath, a very shrewd and manipulative psychopath. Then throughout the six decades of this dictatorship the left leaning media dutifully reported stories on Cuba, always in the best light possible for the dictatorship.

So here we are after six decades, and the petri dish is no more. The experiment failed and the lab is a mess, a real BIG MESS. The problem remains however, how do we clean it up We sure will not get any help from the media, they are still working on the premise the experiment has a possibility of working. They are so convinced they are even willing to promote trying it in the US. Two tasks remain for all Cubans.

If you are a Cuban on the island – Keep fighting.

If you are a Cuban on the outside – Keep speaking out.

We have few friends, and it takes times like this to sort those details out.

“Estamos Solos con Dios” (I like those odds!)

La Finca, es de Antonio!

En estos ultimo días he tenido la oportunidad de hablar con varios cubanos en EE. UU. y también escuchar de otros que viajan a la isla. Algunos para “comprar” una propiedad y otros para “mantener el derecho de dueño” sobre una propiedad comprada en el pasado. Es muy interesante como el mismo gobierno que les arrebato a muchos cubanos su derecho a tener propiedad hoy les dice que nuevamente pueden ser dueños. Ayer no pero hoy sí.

Que es lo que está pasando y por qué? Un gobierno que por décadas declaro que los bienes eran del pueblo, y que “el pueblo es el gobierno”. Hay varios factores en esto, pero tres que sobresalen:

• las escaseces de vivienda en la isla,
• la necesidad del régimen de transmitir el sentido de cambio,
• la necesidad de fondos o divisas para el gobierno.

Estos factores han estado presentes durante muchos años, pero el régimen desde hace ya un tiempo está haciendo un esfuerzo por darle una cara diferente a la temática de Cuba en el futuro.

Permitiéndole al pueblo decir que “son dueños” de su casa crea las condiciones que necesita el gobierno para manejar esas tres condiciones mencionadas. El que es dueño de una propiedad es mas probable que invierta en mejorar esa propiedad y en algunos casos agregarle habitaciones etc. Eso es ideal para el gobierno, porque les disminuyen el problema de las viviendas, los ciudadanos sienten que hay cambio porque lo perciben en su propia casa y el gobierno recibe las divisas. Esa parte de las divisas viene porque en muchos casos el ciudadano vive en cuba, pero recibe ayuda del pariente que esta fuera. En otros casos el “ciudadano” que esta fuera con ansias de regresar a su tierra, va para la isla y voluntariamente le lleva al régimen las divisas que necesita y “compra una propiedad”

Esta “LEY” permitiendo al cubano ser dueño de su propiedad es una de las cosas más cínicas que se le ha impuesto al cubano entre todas las otras cosas, que ya ha pasado. El cubano ahora tiene el “privilegio” de “comprar” una casa que era de otra familia o se le arrebato a otro cubano en tiempos pasados. Este mismo cubano propietario, si decide y logra irse del país (TIENE QUE REGRESAR) antes de dos años o le quitan la propiedad. Aclarando, eres dueño, pero tienes que viajar a cuba cada dos años, nuevamente contribuyendo a la necesidad de las divisas. 

Esto es un negocio cerrado para el gobierno; pero recordemos que “La Revolución es Muy Generosa”.

PS. La Finca, es de Antonio!

Marriage and the Current Debate

The discussion, debate, argument, posturing and legal maneuvering is at an all-time high over the issue of same gender unions. There are some things which I find fascinating in this process and two of them particularly stand out to me. The first is what marriage is and where does it come from, and the second closely related to the first; does a same gender couple have the right to require a pastor/clergyman to marry them.

Point of clarification, what each of you does with your life is your business, not mine and not ours. This commentary goes as to the definition of marriage (not a legal exercise) and also as to the religious freedom of others regarding marriage.

Marriage as I see it and as most people see it, is the union of one man and one woman and many of us in the Judeo-Christian tradition hold it as a sacred union created by God at creation and later affirmed by Christ at the weddings of Cana. That’s it, that’s the simple definition. We also believe that what the state does regarding marriage is to give legal status to a union created by God. The argument for the longest time has been that same gender partners should have the same “legal rights” as those in marriages. My only disagreement with that is that it would also be called “marriage” although it could not from a religious stand point, if we hold that it is God who instituted marriage. Many have said over the years give same gender folks the opportunity to have the same legal rights and call it “xyz”.

The argument would continue, we want to go ahead and do this and call it marriage anyway, even if you religious folks don’t consider it marriage; the state says it can be called marriage. The Church does not have a copyright on the word “marriage”. OK the church does not have a copyright on the word marriage, so the aspiring couple could go ahead and “marry” under the laws of a given state and call it marriage. So we now have the same word for two very different things. The problem with this is that the folks that support same gender “marriage” have now managed to confuse themselves into thinking that since it is called “marriage” they can “require” a minister to perform a wedding ceremony.

Hold it there folks, the “marriage” that was just legalized is the one performed by the state which has no power or jurisdiction over the marriage the church performs. You see the confusion this has created. The marriage the Church performs by its ministers, pastors, priests, deacons or rabbis is protected by the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution and by God Himself.

All along the folks that argued for the rights of same gender unions explained that this was a legal issue and that folks in those relationships should have the same legal rights and that consequently God or his ministers had no business in this argument. It was not a religious matter only a legal one. OK, since the state can issue any license and call it what it wishes then the state can go ahead and perform whatever ceremony it wishes.

However, once you attempt to force a minister to “marry” the couple then this is no longer about rights for same gender couples. This is now something else; what should we call it?

The Fourth Religion

I am of course referring to modern American Liberalism. We often hear mention of the three great world religions, but we do not often hear of the fourth one as a religion. While they act, worship and defend their “core beliefs” as strongly as any person of faith, they and we not often think of this group as a religious group. Let’s examine this component of modern American culture and politics, and see why it is a religion or more like a cult.

They will espouse strong views on subjects that sometimes are either generally or narrowly defined, depending on the most beneficial definition for the moment. In this endeavor they will claim to defend the first amendment of the constitution; freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. You will hear the liberal faithful claim to defend this most basics of American Rights, yet have you really sat down and observed the liberal group respond to a comment that does not agree with their agenda or is “offensive” according to liberal parlance. Recently one of the old guys from the Duck Dynasty show said some things that strayed from the liberal parlance. The things he said however are perfectly acceptable within his belief system and as an American he has a right to say them, period. (And yes period means period when I say it) We either have freedom of speech or we don’t.

You will see those same liberal citizens who so strongly support the first amendment pounce on this man, his family and his business to quiet him, destroy him and send a message to the others who dare disagree with the modern acceptable standards set, defined, and often re-defined by the liberal conscious. The liberal conscious is this nebulous collective thought that permeates everything and is ever present, emanating from the liberal luminaries of “the great church council”.

They reside as members of the press, who by definition would be defending the first amendment and this man’s right to speak, yet they will be amongst the most vocal, not in denouncing his comments, but in attempting to discredit every aspect of his life, integrity and family. They would not be satisfied with disagreeing and having a debate on the merits, nope. He will be vilified and his person will be destroyed. The first amendment is not for him.

Another group is the members of the professional punditry, they by definition would also defend the first amendment, but they will not in this case. They will pounce and will join the collective. In this case if you watch closely and listen to different commentary on different stations you will hear the same comments, sometimes verbatim as if they were coming from some higher authority (Not God by the way), they never listen to God “He has nothing to say” you see. This great consciousness knows no higher authority than their own intellect, and they worship at this altar constantly.

The “great church council” will punish the old man and they will sit in judgment and pontificate, because you see they know. What do they know you ask; everything because there is no higher authority. What are their core beliefs you ask, that depends, is today Wednesday or Thursday, has any one member of the high council fallen out of favor. All these factors must be consider when arriving at what is today’s great wrong or offense to be corrected, and how severe the punishment will be.

Stayed tuned.