Obama and Cuba

[TotallyOz]

Do you think we will finally be able to get in? How soon? Can't wait to do that legally!

[TampaYankee]

Do you think we will finally be able to get in? How soon? Can't wait to do that legally!

I suspect there is still a way to go puncuated by more small steps along the way. It really hinges on Fidel IMO and may take his passing before full normal relations are established. That is unless he forsakes 50 years of his policies. I don't see that happening while he lives.

It would be great from a 'tourista' point of view but let's avoid the politcal pros and cons.

[caeron]

I think he did a couple of small reasonable liberalizations. If cuba responds well, it could happen swiftly. If we can have "normal" relations with China, we ought to be able to with Cuba.

[TotallyOz]

I totally agree and the guys there are so fucking hot.

[MsGuy]

Havana has been called the Thailand of the Caribbean, so Oz should love it there.

[TampaYankee]

I think he did a couple of small reasonable liberalizations. If cuba responds well, it could happen swiftly. If we can have "normal" relations with China, we ought to be able to with Cuba.

Sure it could. If they free their political prisoners as categorized by the State Dept and institute true due process, and allow unencumbered freedom of the press then that would be a basic start at transforming the totlitarian regime. Not sure I see Fidel rolling all of those back in his lifetime.

Not sure that anything short of that would cause a wide rollback of the economic boycott. I do suspect it will happen gradually -- tit for tat, with greater momentum after Fidel.

That still leaves free elections, restoration of property rights and resolution of claims by the exiles to be resolved eventually.

The big difference between China and Cuba: We don't have a significant political block of Chinese refugees in exile whose families lost members and property to the revolution. That changes the political quotient. That and the fact that American business stands much less to gain from opening the Cuban markets in comparison to Chinese markets.

Personally, I hope it happens sooner rather than later as I think it is long overdue.

[MsGuy]

Sure it could. If they free their political prisoners as categorized by the State Dept and institute true due process, allow unencumbered freedom of the press, and institutiontionalize property rights then that would be a basic start at transforming the totlitarian regime. Not sure I see Fidel rolling all of those back in his lifetime.

Not sure that anything short of that would cause a wide rollback of the economic boycott. I do suspect it will happen gradually -- tit for tat, with greater momentum after Fidel.

That still leaves free elections and resolution of claims by the exiles to be resolved eventually.

The big difference between China and Cuba: We don't have a significant political block of Chinese refugees in exile whose families lost members and property to the revolution. That changes the political quotient. That and the fact that American business stands much less to gain from opening the Cuban markets in comparison to Chinese markets.

Personally, I hope it happens sooner rather than later as I think it is long overdue.

T.Y., IMHO America's Cuban policy is still being driven by domestic politics. Obama appears to be trying (cautiously) to use travel and remittance money as issues to separate younger more moderate Cuban-Americans from the mossbacks. Given the minor importance of Cuba to the US, I doubt he will risk much political capital. We can only hope Raul needs tourist dollars more than he needs to be seen as standing up to America. If so, Obama may accommodate him. Just domestic politics for both sides.

That said, doesn't your post skirt mighty close to the political line you guys have drawn? Isn't your post really telling people that political posts are O.K. as long as your tone is reasonable and you keep a civil tongue in your head? I enjoy a good rant as much as anyone, but this site just wouldn't be as pleasant to visit if you invited politics in. Politics = angry hateful posts. No practical way to keep political threads civil IMO. I know drawing this line requires judgment calls and I readily concede yall have way more experience than I at moderating a board. Good luck and thanks for all your hard work.

Me, I've been poking around in cyberspace trying to find an article on male prostitution in Havana I read last year. It was fairly detailed and written with the help of insiders, so I thought yall might find it of interest. So far I'm only finding stuff 6 to 8 years old. I'll give it another shot tomorrow.

[TampaYankee]

That said, doesn't your post skirt mighty close to the political line you guys have drawn?

I admit I had pause before posting. The fuzzy line where current events crosses over into politics is no doubt dependent on the the eye of the beholder. I'm particularly sensitive to partisan politics which stirs passions beyond civility that all too often turns into raucus food fights with name calling and insults being hurled back and forth. I like a thoughtful intellectual debate. I often learn facts or gain a new perspecitve on issues. However, a thoughtful thread cannot survive for long once strident personalities enter the give and take. I tried to avoid the introduction of partisan perspectives in discussing the facts that must be delt with to overcome the status quo on Cuba.

Isn't your post really telling people that political posts are O.K. as long as your tone is reasonable and you keep a civil tongue in your head?

I do subscribe to that notion myself but that was not my message or intent. Unfortunately, IMO it is impossible for a site like this to keep that train on the track. We did an acceptable job during the primaries and even during the general election too, though little was posted about the general election as I recall. My theory is that during the primaries most Dems spar with other Dems and the same among Republicans. Thus differences are less and in the end they must come together for political practicality. That leads to less stridency.

I enjoy a good rant as much as anyone, but this site just wouldn't be as pleasant to visit if you invited politics in. Politics = angry hateful posts. No practical way to keep political threads civil IMO. I know drawing this line requires judgment calls and I readily concede yall have way more experience than I at moderating a board. Good luck and thanks for all your hard work.

I have to agree that ugly political threads detract from the site atmosphere. I have received similar expressions from other members. I do enjoy thoughtful exchanges, including politics. However, it seems that self-discipline and political discussions are like oil and water for some. Not everyone, but it only takes one or two to start the fire. Still there are some that like to observe, if not participate in, brawls with blood and guts.

Timely that you mention this. Oz and I have been discussing this issue in background. He is in favor of permitting politics threads. He enjoys them, as I do. I suspect he believes that others also enjoy the discussions and activity it brings to the boards.

Also, he believes that we can manage the 'behavorial issues'. I am strongly dubious. I've seen this tried several times before: here and elsewhere. I have never seen anything that gives me optimism about consistency of cvility and respectful behavior over the long run. Invariably, some feel that moderation is unevenly applied by moderators. That is because the slippery slope phenomenon is involved. It is easy when stark examples of disrespect are exhibited. The problem is the case where an otherwise civil argument slips in a quick zinger or subtle put-down. Where to draw the line of unacceptability? It is a subjective call. Let one go by because of the overall value of the post and it invites a return shot. In no time someone gets called on it, always unfairly in the eyes of that poster and his supporters.

I really do not want to have to edit posts with any frequency. It is a burden to attempt to be fair when it really can never be absolutely equal treatment. It often tends to be a case of gradualism when the weight of off-comments just accumulate to warrant an edit or deletion. They may not even be soley the remarks of a single contributor. Maybe it is more clear cut for Oz and he has more stomach for riding herd.

Even so, that won't address those such as yourself who are turned off by strident political postings unless all messages are moderated prior to posting. I do not believe that anyone wants that.

So, because the topic of permitting political posts is under discussion between Oz and myself, everyone with an opinion should post or email their feelings on the subject. Email to maleescortreview@gmail.com if you prefer not to post. I'm against it, Oz is for it. However we both agree that the site ought to provide what members want when practicable. So speak up and be counted.

Me, I've been poking around in cyberspace trying to find an article on male prostitution in Havana I read last year. It was fairly detailed and written with the help of insiders, so I thought yall might find it of interest. So far I'm only finding stuff 6 to 8 years old. I'll give it another shot tomorrow.

I definitely am interested in the Cuba scene whether prostitution or the acceptance of gay life on the island. I suspect that many others are as well, the more so given present times. Please do share whatever you find.

Note: To accumulate in one place all posted input to the question about political threads, I have created a new thread topic: Political Threads -- To Be or Not To Be, pinned at the top of the PUB Forum. Please post your opinion there or email to maleescortreview@gmail.com.

[caeron]

I've been on the internet for 25 years (from the days of the arpanet). I've never seen political discussion do anything other than turn into a drunken brawl. Who knows, this might be the first site to manage it, but I doubt it. If we end up there, I will participate much less.

My experience is that these discussions are very low signal to noise ratio discussions with much interest in scoring points and little interest in debating. Even if they are debates, they are usually useless because if you strip it all away, it's just different people saying they have different political priorities than others. If two people have different priorities for judging political decisions, there is really no useful basis for debate. Add to that a huge helping of bitching/insults, and I find that there isn't much useful to be gained by the conversations.

My .02

[MsGuy]

T.Y., I have an enduring interest in how homosexuality plays out in different cultures/places/times. If I can work up the energy, I'll do some research on gay life in Cuba and post any useful links here. No promises and it may take some time.

If it's O.K. with you, I may use the Chat Line Schedule to practice posting a working link. It's a case of old dogs/new tricks. I wouldn't want to clog up active threads trying to figure it out.

P.S. That article is proving difficult to recover. I can recall wandering from one link to to the next, but I can't remember where I started. Such is life on the internet.

[AdamSmith]

I find that there isn't much useful to be gained by the conversations.

I respectfully dissent. (As Their Honors say.)

Example: In this recent thread -- http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/inde...?showtopic=3357 -- Conway pointed us back to the well established (roughly half-century-old) Supreme Court precedent on which the Bush Administration based some of its decisions about wartime detainee rights. Before Conway's post, I had known the name of the precedent but not much about it. Thanks to Conway, I was provoked to go back and find out more about the original decision -- both its contents, which the administration relied on, and the reasons why some contemporary observers think the precedent may be shakier than its adherents would like to admit.

Of course political discourse and argumentation will be skewed to one view or another. Even my last sentence in the paragraph above contains an implicit -- okay, explicit -- bias. But if we all make good-faith efforts to ensure that at least 51% of any political post consists of the facts, as opposed to the conclusions we draw from them, then other posters will have some basis to agree or disagree, and say why.

I realize none of this really answers Caeron's or TY's point that brawls will ensue regardless. I have no answer to that. I just have a sense that this forum will be less enhanced than diminished if we banish all political discourse, even given the evils that such discourse necessarily risks.

[Guest 2hard2tame]

I've been on the internet for 25 years (from the days of the arpanet). I've never seen political discussion do anything other than turn into a drunken brawl. Who knows, this might be the first site to manage it, but I doubt it. If we end up there, I will participate much less.

My experience is that these discussions are very low signal to noise ratio discussions with much interest in scoring points and little interest in debating. Even if they are debates, they are usually useless because if you strip it all away, it's just different people saying they have different political priorities than others. If two people have different priorities for judging political decisions, there is really no useful basis for debate. Add to that a huge helping of bitching/insults, and I find that there isn't much useful to be gained by the conversations.

My .02

I am here for the drunken brawl.

[BigK]

No battles so far here. I'm in favor of threads like these since they delve into interesting issues.

Certainly better then my posting about the TV show Kings which no one seems to find interesting. Let's keep walking the political line.

[AdamSmith]

the TV show Kings which no one seems to find interesting.

No, no! Kings posts are good too.

The midcentury aesthetics pundits got it ass-about: More is more.

[AdamSmith]

I am here for the drunken brawl.

I feel like I am all-night barebacking to say it, but I just about agree with 2h2t.

[Guest 2hard2tame]

I feel like I am all-night barebacking to say it, but I just about agree with 2h2t.

Did you attend your local tea party?

[AdamSmith]

Did you attend your local tea party?

Sorry -- I would rim Barack (& eat out Michelle) if offered the chance.

Anyway I pay local taxes in the People's Republic of Cambridge, Mass. So I gave at the office.

[Guest 2hard2tame]

Sorry -- I would rim Barack (& eat out Michelle) if offered the chance.

Anyway I pay local taxes in the People's Republic of Cambridge, Mass. So I gave at the office.

Ah, your comment mislead me. I now see you are hailing from the "other side". brb as I wade through the red tape so I can fulfil my right wing, gun waving stereotype while managing to wave my as of late downtrodden flag.

I would still have a beer with you. And I wouldn't even try to force you to pay for mine even tho you doubtlessly make more than I.

*wink

[AdamSmith]

What did you think? I'm as pink as they come.

I would still have a beer with you. And I wouldn't even try to force you to pay for mine even tho you doubtlessly make more than I.

*wink

If you still worked, I would try to fix that by letting you fuck me all night. Arguing the whole time.

Politics does make strange bedfellows. Long live!

[TampaYankee]

I've been on the internet for 25 years (from the days of the arpanet). I've never seen political discussion do anything other than turn into a drunken brawl. Who knows, this might be the first site to manage it, but I doubt it. If we end up there, I will participate much less.

My experience is that these discussions are very low signal to noise ratio discussions with much interest in scoring points and little interest in debating. Even if they are debates, they are usually useless because if you strip it all away, it's just different people saying they have different political priorities than others. If two people have different priorities for judging political decisions, there is really no useful basis for debate. Add to that a huge helping of bitching/insults, and I find that there isn't much useful to be gained by the conversations.

My .02

We share the same experience and views and BTW I also was on the ARPANET way back in the olden days too.

[MsGuy]

T.Y., I am still looking for that article, but you might want to try GlobalGayz.com. Click thru to Cuba and you can find a slew of pieces on Gay life in Cuba that range from life in the boonies to a 1st person POV of a tranny show bar in Havana to Raul Castro's daughter publicaly pushing something like Gay marriage. Also covers arts & cinema.

It looks like a good place to find a mosaic of Cuba's gay life.

[TampaYankee]

T.Y., I am still looking for that article, but you might want to try GlobalGayz.com. Click thru to Cuba and you can find a slew of pieces on Gay life in Cuba that range from life in the boonies to a 1st person POV of a tranny show bar in Havana to Raul Castro's daughter publicaly pushing something like Gay marriage. Also covers arts & cinema.

It looks like a good place to find a mosaic of Cuba's gay life.

Thanks for the link. A bit dated but then it's not exactly an open society which prompts the present curiosity.

Not suprising to see that Fidel rebuffed Obama's overture and threw Raul under the bus regarding any broad opening of discussions. However, it firmly puts the ball in Cuba's court. The return serve awaits Fidel's passing.

[AdamSmith]

Not suprising to see that Fidel rebuffed Obama's overture and threw Raul under the bus regarding any broad opening of discussions. However, it firmly puts the ball in Cuba's court. The return serve awaits Fidel's passing.

Yes -- fascinating to see Raul apparently trying to ease the door open a crack, but Fidel heard the hinges creak. Raul must be feeling a touch fratricidal these days.

[MsGuy]

Yes -- fascinating to see Raul apparently trying to ease the door open a crack, but Fidel heard the hinges creak. Raul must be feeling a touch fratricidal these days.

Wasn't there a persistant rumor that Beria(?) used a bed pillow to ease Stalin's passing?

[AdamSmith]

Wasn't there a persistant rumor that Beria(?) used a bed pillow to ease Stalin's passing?

Well, at least that he was one of those in no great hurry to fetch aid after Stalin collapsed.

FWIW, Wikipedia adds a couple of touches that I had not heard before:

Stalin collapsed during the night after a dinner with Beria and other Soviet leaders, and died four days later on 5 March 1953.

Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, in his political memoirs (published posthumously in 1993), claimed that Beria told him that he had poisoned Stalin. "I took him out," Beria supposedly boasted. There is evidence[citation needed] that after Stalin was found unconscious, medical care was not provided for many hours. Other evidence of the murder of Stalin by Beria associates was presented by Edvard Radzinsky in his biography Stalin. It has been suggested that warfarin was used; it would have produced the symptoms reported.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrenty_Beria