Cuba

[RA1]

I know all you tourists want to go to Havana for an overnight or two. It is great that Alan Gross was released. I think it is better to have communication with your enemies than not. But the average citizen of Cuba ( basically the only Cubans I care about) will likely not benefit from the US giving much and getting almost nothing in return. They will still be living in a Communist dictatorship with the economy and every thing else controlled by the government. They cannot legally own USD or any other currency other than worthless Cuban Pesos. One of the prisoners about to be released conspired to have two US unarmed planes in international waters shot down killing all four aboard. Personally I am not so happy to see him released from his "life sentence".

Most pols and especially US Presidents have until now refrained from such actions with Cuba because of the votes of the swing state of Florida, as well as the many Cuban refugees living there. BO cannot run again so he can ignore this aspect as well as the restraint that many Democrats would like to show in this affair. He is busy trying to build his legacy while being a lame duck. I don't blame him for trying to polish his apple but I still think it is rotten at the core. Sorry.

Still this day had to come. I expected it to come after Fidel and Raul were dead and gone but here it is. We can always hope.

Cuba, Si.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

RA1, Mr. Gross was a US contract agent arrested on a rather idiotic, designed to fail mission dreamed up by some air head James Bond wannabe back in the comfortable bosom of the CIA in Washington. He must have been an amateur because any spy with even a modicum of experience would have refused the assignment.

My understanding is that after 5 years in a Cuban hell hole, he was on his last legs and had refused medical treatment rather than spend any further time under the care of the Castro brothers. He was saying that he'd rather be dead. We owed it to him to get him out.

----

As to the diplomatic recognition thing, folks can argue about that until the cows come home. Way too complicated for me to figure it all out.

However it does occur to me that the 'average citizen of Cuba' does not seem to have benefited much from our non-recognition of his masters government nor does it seem likely he will suffer much from the presence of an American embassy in Havana (as opposed to the "US Interests" section now housed in the Canadian embassy building).

But then who knows, maybe I'm just getting too old to see the obvious.

Hell, I'm too old and feeble even to enjoy that weekend in Havana.

Unless someone wants to volunteer to fly me & my oxy machine down in a private jet?

And push me around Havana's Boys Town in a wheelchair. And supply a portable air conditioner. (Maybe Tampa Yanqui would be willing to lend us his. )

[RA1]

I hope I didn't write anything that vaguely defended the CIA. As stated, glad that Mr. Gloss is coming home. I agree that the average Cuban citizen did not benefit from US economic isolation but they likely will not soon benefit from resuming diplomatic relations with the US either.

I had a portable air-conditioner but sold it when I moved. The "clean Communist air" should be refreshing to any "Liberal", should it not? I do have a left over wheel chair but I am fresh out of personal jets. TY to the rescue?

Best regards,

RA1

[MsAnn]

I hope I didn't write anything that vaguely defended the CIA. As stated, glad that Mr. Gloss is coming home. I agree that the average Cuban citizen did not benefit from US economic isolation but they likely will not soon benefit from resuming diplomatic relations with the US either.

I had a portable air-conditioner but sold it when I moved. The "clean Communist air" should be refreshing to any "Liberal", should it not? I do have a left over wheel chair but I am fresh out of personal jets. TY to the rescue?

Best regards,

RA1

You simply do not know that. Resuming diplomatic relations is only the first in a long series of steps that will eventually benefit the Cuban boys economy immensely. I'd go just for the young boys, old cars, and ceegars.

[lookin]

Unless someone wants to volunteer to fly me & my oxy machine down in a private jet?

And push me around Havana's Boys Town in a wheelchair. And supply a portable air conditioner. (Maybe Tampa Yanqui would be willing to lend us his. )

You line up the travel and visas and I'll be happy to accompany you as far as the Malecón. No doubt someone there will be delighted to push you around.

[AdamSmith]

[MsAnn]

And bless their little hearts, after all the shit we put them through, they still buy American.

[RA1]

MsAnn-

"Eventually" so far has lasted over 50 years.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsAnn]

If I was a bettin man, I would say that this time around, "eventually" will translate into 5 tops.

[MsGuy]

So far 75 years seems to be the absolute max life span for a commie regime with the average being some considerably less, so keep the faith, RA1.

It always struck me as odd that same folks who intuitively understood that state socialism was not a viable economic model (not to mention a nasty system to live under) were the most passionately convinced that the only way to get rid of one was to attack it hammer and tong.

Interestingly enough, a tong is one of those pincer looking thingies on the upper left.

Who knew?

[MsGuy]

You line up the travel and visas and I'll be happy to accompany you as far as the Malecón. No doubt someone there will be delighted to push you around.

But where will I find reliable power for my oxy gizmo?

Now if MsAnn's hitch hiker wanted a chance to practice his English, I might just be willing to take my chances.

[AdamSmith]

Republicans hardly unanimous on new Cuba policy

MSNBC.com

...GOP critics of the White Houses announcement werent hard to find yesterday. Every Republican whos likely to run for president in 2016 was eager to tell news organizations how outraged they are, as were many GOP congressional leaders. As the day progressed, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) seemed to be having a competition of sorts, with each effectively saying, No, Im more enraged than you.

Its hard to know how much of this was sincere and how much of it was knee-jerk opposition to everything the president says, but either way the Republican posturing puts the party at odds with the American mainstream. David Graham noted yesterday, n every Gallup poll since 1999, a majority of Americans have wanted to normalize relations with Cuba, with the number varying between 55 and 71 percent in favor. And bare majorities or in one 2000 poll, a plurality have also supported ending the U.S. embargo against the country.

More important, however, is the degree to which the Republican posturing also masked GOP support for Obamas policy shift.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), for example, was on the plane back from Cuba with Alan Gross yesterday, and the Arizonan said hell sponsor legislation to vastly expand American travel to Cuba. Soon after, Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said hell introduce an identical bill in the House.

Around the same time, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the incoming chairman of the House Oversight Committee, publicly expressed support for the Obama administrations policy.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, held his fire altogether, saying only that his panel would be closely examining the policy change.

Meanwhile, the GOPs allies at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are delighted by the White Houses new policy towards Cuba, leaving Marco Rubio in the awkward position of blasting American business interests looking for profits.

Since when do far-right Republicans criticize the U.S. private sector looking for expanded trade?

The politics of this breakthrough are more nuanced than some might think. Indeed, the White House could plausibly claim ample bipartisan support for their policy.

Update: This afternoon, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also expressed support for Obamas shift on Cuba. The 50-year embargo just hasnt worked, Paul said, adding, In the end, I think opening up Cuba is probably a good idea. So far, hes the only Republican likely to run for president to endorse the change.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-hardly-unanimous-new-cuba-policy

[MsGuy]

I haven't the energy to search it out but I'm pretty sure we have had this discussion before.

----

Personally, I think US policy on Cuba has been driven by the political need to cater to the views of the Cuban exile community in Florida, not by the normal criteria of US foreign policy. In other words, this is a US domestic political issue and all the arguments advanced pro or con are just so much hot air unless they make their domestic basis explicit, i.e.:

Exiles: "Non-recognition and embargo or give up on Florida in the next Presidential election."

Agg & light industrial interests: "Cuba would sure make a nice market where we have a real competitive advantage."

Tourism interests: "Hmmm...Remember how it was in the 50s."

Cuban bond holders, the Bacardi family, other expropriated interests: "Over our dead bodies until Castro settles up with us."

Gays: "Jesus, it's like Brazil, only 1/2 an hour from Miami! . And CHEAPER!"

The problem for the pro opening interests is that from America's perspective, Cuba just doesn't amount to much in the greater scheme of things so no one except the exiles get very worked up one way or the other.

The problem for the pro embargo folks is that increasingly the 2nd and 3rd generation Cuban-Americans don't see much sense in continuing the status quo. And some of their business types are starting to see real possibilities in opening things up.

[AdamSmith]

A virulently right wing acquaintance from high school tonight got into a dust up on Facebook defending the opening to his right wing compadres. His point was: China has already got far ahead of us in buying up, one way or another, the underdeveloped economic potential in South America -- do you really insist we eventually let them have even Cuba too?

NYT has long editorialized, without using quite these words, that it is potentially a Mexican-priced labor force but of educated, high-skill doctors, technicians, etc.

[MsGuy]

NYT has long editorialized, without using quite these words, that it is potentially a Mexican-priced labor force but of educated, high-skill doctors, technicians, etc.

And cute, shirtless young hitch hikers anxious to practice their English. Don't forget the hitch hikers.

More seriously, your unpleasant friend is echoing a lot of people. As cracks open in the exile block (& Obama demonstrated exactly how to hit its fracture lines), other interests are finding room to push forward more forcibly.

[AdamSmith]

Rand Paul's Cuba op-ed in Time:

http://time.com/3642353/rand-paul-cuba-rubio-isolationists-just-dont-get-it/

[RA1]

The "old American car" is a 1953 Buick.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

Since you brought it up, RA1, it occurs to me that any of us in possession of a '40s or '50s era classic car better sell now before trade with Cuba floods the market

[AdamSmith]

Obama's Republican ally on Cuba

How a conservative Mormon became the biggest Republican Cuba advocate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/jeff-flake-obama-cuba-113717.html?hp=t3_r

[RA1]

Is "conservative Mormon" redundant?

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Is "conservative Mormon" redundant?

Well, not always, come to think. For the counterexamples, see:

(1) Huntsman, Jon.

(2) Romney, to some extent, when governor of Massachusetts. A far more centrist, sensible technocrat then than once he had to pander to the right wing nuts who call the Republican Presidential primaries.

Of course the devil is in how you define 'conservative.'

[MsGuy]

Mormon liberals are like Mormon gays...they're there alright, they just tend to be in the closet.

[MsGuy]

Speak of the Devil...

[AdamSmith]

Speak of the Devil...

"The special is produced by Hot Snakes Media."

[AdamSmith]

Why Cuba move will help America

By Fareed Zakaria

cnn.com

(CNN) -- In opposing President Barack Obama's opening to Cuba, Florida's Republican senator, Marco Rubio, explained, "This entire policy shift announced today is based on an illusion, on a lie, the lie and the illusion that more commerce and access to money and goods will translate to political freedom for the Cuban people." Rubio has correctly touched on the core issue. But theory, logic and history suggest that he's wrong in his conclusions.

I would recommend to Rubio one of the classics of conservative thought, Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom." He doesn't have to spend too much time on it. The first chapter outlines the "relation between economic freedom and political freedom."

The point Friedman makes in the book is one that America's founding fathers well understood. Drawing on the political philosopher John Locke, they believed that the freedom to buy, sell, own and trade were core elements of human freedom and individual autonomy. As they expand, liberty expands.

This is not just theory, of course. Over the last two centuries, the countries that embraced "more commerce and access to money and goods" in Rubio's phrase -- Britain, America, then Western Europe and East Asia -- have moved toward greater prosperity, but also political freedom. If you exclude oil-rich countries, where money is not earned but dug from the ground, almost every country that has used free markets and free trade to grow is also a democracy.

Yes there are a few exceptions: Singapore and China (though the latter is still not quite a developed economy.) But on the whole, there has been a remarkably strong connection between economic freedom and political freedom.

In Latin America itself, the line has been clear. Augusto Pinochet's regime opened up its economy in the 1970s. Chile began to grow, but that growth then produced a stronger civil society that over time clamored for the end of the Pinochet dictatorship. (The same pattern could be seen in Taiwan, South Korea, Spain and Portugal.) In Latin America today, democracy and markets have acted to reinforce each other, transforming the continent, which 30 years ago was almost entirely ruled by dictatorships to one that is today almost entirely ruled by democracies.

Cuba is an outlier, one of the last regimes in Latin America that has embraced neither markets nor ballots. The Obama administration is acting on the theory that more commerce, capitalism, contact, travel and trade will empower the people of Cuba and thus give them a greater voice in their political future. And so the first point to make is that it will help Cubans economically -- it will raise their incomes, their standard of living, and boost access to technology. These are all good things in and of themselves.

But easing the embargo will also help Americans, who will benefit from being able to trade with a neighbor. This is the reason that conservatives have long understood that free trade is not a gift bestowed on someone. It helps both countries and in particular, helps the United States.

That's why the Wall Street Journal's editorial page -- bastion of conservative thought -- has been an advocate on lifting the trade embargo against Cuba, which is a far larger step than Obama's normalization.

So, did it support Obama's opening? Of course not. It turns out that he has done it in the wrong way. It is difficult not to think that the problem here is not the policy, but who the president is. Had George W. Bush announced this initiative, I have a feeling that the Wall Street Journal would be hailing it -- and Rubio would be quoting Milton Friedman to us all.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/19/opinion/zakaria-cuba-embargo-change/index.html?hpt=hp_t3