Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Still Stuck on Castro
How the press handled a tyrant's farewell
In a country where major news developments rarely precipitate anything but deeper misery, Cuba awoke Tuesday to the news that el jefe maximo, Fidel Castro, had formally ceded power to his younger brother Raul. Cuba has grown accustomed to a seemingly endless and ageless set of images of the revolutionary father delivering a stultifying oration on Yanqui this-or-that, reposing in a monogrammed track suit, mumbling incoherently about his days in the Sierra Maestra. But to Cuba watchers and exiles, his official ceding of power was unexpected.
The 81-year-old Castro tendered his resignation in column form, carried in Cuba's national newspaper (there is, excluding a flimsy "youth publication," just one). Lifting language from Lyndon Johnson (one of the many presidents that, the deeply serious pundit is required to mention, he has "outlived"), Fidel declared, "I will neither aspire to nor accept—I repeat, I will neither aspire to nor accept—the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief." Delusional until the end, Castro presumes that his indentured subjects demand eternal revolution, forcing him to repeat that, no, it will be little Raul, 76, who will guide the Cuban people towards a classless and cashless utopia. MSNBC's Chris Matthews apparently believes this too, asking Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), co-sponsor of the monumentally stupid, embargo-expanding Helms-Burton Act, why "Cubans on the island still support the Castro brothers."
The preceding days have demonstrated that information peddled by Castro's legion of academic and celebrity apologists has deeply penetrated the mainstream media consciousness, with credulous reporting sundry revolutionary "successes" of the regime: not so good on free speech, but oh-so-enviable on health care and education.
In an email to staffers, with the nudging subject line "Castro guidance," CNN producer Allison Flexner advised reporters to be fair and not to focus solely on the regime's repressiveness. "Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba," writes Flexner, "namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech."
Well, wrong on all three counts, but more on that later. That evening, CNN's ubiquitous foreign correspondent Christiane Amanpour appeared on a panel to hail the end of Castro's rule while managing to mention that he was "a leader in many things such as education, health care." Message received, Atlanta!
In Europe, The Guardian's Latin American correspondent Rory Carroll admonished Cuba for its human rights violations while praising "the government's success in offering all its citizens free access to education and healthcare, resulting in western levels of literacy and life expectancy." That's at best a dubious achievement, considering that Cuba is situated in the West. "Compared with other Latin American countries," Carroll gushed, "Cuba is notable for its absence of beggars, violent crime and extreme inequality," because everyone is equally poor. The average monthly salary in Cuba is 330 pesos—about $13.75.
Thirteen measly bucks and there aren't any beggars in Cuba? Well, not really. As one Miami Herald reporter observed in December 2006, "Anyone strolling through Cuba's tourist spots like Old Havana is likely to encounter a number of panhandlers, from the disabled like Avila and the elderly like Cecilia in the Plaza de Armas, to those struggling with mental illness such as Irma Castillo at the Parque Central." The British left-wing magazine The New Internationalist reported, "On the streets of Havana there are two relatively common sights that wouldn't have been seen 20 years ago: cellphones and beggars." (Cell phone use is, naturally, heavily regulated by the government, ensuring that Cuba ranks second to last in a recent United Nations table of cell phones per person. For those scoring at home, only Papua New Guinea ranks lower.)
The British news agency Reuters tells us that Castro came to power by overthrowing "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista." And Batista was a dictator—one alternately supported, tolerated, and disliked by Washington. As historian Hugh Thomas, author the magisterial book Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom, wrote, "American assistance to Batista was never explicitly forthcoming." By 1958, a year before Castro's seizure of power, the U.S. had instituted an arms embargo against Batista, and elements within the CIA and State Department were actively agitating for a Castro victory. Indeed, it was the British government that agreed to sell Batista military hardware—15 fighter planes—when the Eisenhower administration refused.
And how does Reuters describe Castro? After 50 years of brutal one-party rule, to apply the appellation "dictator" seems a rather contentious issue: "Vilified by opponents as a totalitarian dictator, Castro is admired in many Third World nations for standing up to the United States and providing free education and health care." And again, we return to education and health care.
The AP, retracing the history of modern Cuba, explains that Castro's "revolutionaries opened 10,000 new schools, erased illiteracy, and built a universal health care system." And what kind of schools, what kind of education system, did they inaugurate? As Georgetown University professor Eusebio Mujal-Leon has observed, "The [rewritten Cuban] Constitution made the furtherance of Marxism-Leninism the purpose of education, and through its Article 38 made the latter a function of the state." What good is universal literacy if one can be arrested for possession of an Orwell book? What good is "free" education if honest academic inquiry is forbidden?
In fairness to fourth-estaters, it wasn't just journalists that cribbed from the party script. The ridiculous Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) was the only American politician to debase himself by issuing a Granma-worthy press release actually praising Castro. This week's events prove, Serrano wrote, "that Castro sees clearly the long-term interests of the Cuban people," including the selfless decision to hand power to his brother, thus saving the Cuban people from the indignity of electoral choice. "I would like to congratulate both Fidel Castro and the Cuban people for this smooth transition of power," continued, "Few leaders, having been on the front lines of history so long, would be able to voluntarily step aside in favor of a new, younger generation." The absurdities of that sentence are too many to catalog, though note that the "younger generation" is represented by Fidel's septuagenarian brother Raul.
Writing in The New Statesman, British parliamentarian John McDonnell, the Right Honorable Gentleman from 1968, offers high praise for Cuban communism and demonstrates a level of credulity not seen since John Reed vacationed in Moscow. But don't mention Moscow, because, as McDonnell bizarrely writes, "unlike Stalin's Russia there have never been any Cuban gulags." What's not to like, he asks, about a country that provides "free prescriptions, free care for the elderly, free university education."
So again, the health and education canard returns. What all of these pols and pundits lazily presume is that if the state of Cuban health care and education have markedly improved on Castro's watch, surely the situation was dire during the final years of the Batista dictatorship.
Well, not exactly. In 1959 Cuba had 128.6 doctors and dentists per 100,000 inhabitants, placing it 22nd globally—that is, ahead of France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. In infant mortality tables, Cuba ranked one of the best in the world, with 5.8 deaths per 100,000 babies, compared to 9.5 per 100,000 in the United States. In 1958 Cuba's adult literacy rate was 80 percent, higher than that of its colonial grandfather in Spain, and the country possessed one of the most highly-regarded university systems in the Western hemisphere.
Cuba improved, as have most countries, on some of these indices in the years since the revolution. As reason Contributing Editor Glenn Garvin points out, "countries like Costa Rica, Panama, and Brazil have posted equal gains in literacy during the same time period without resorting to totalitarian governments." (For more reason coverage over the years on Cuba and Castro, go here.)
This is precisely the point: Punctual trains and spiffy highway networks hardly mitigate the horror of dictatorship. Such "advances," like the illusory gains of the Cuban Revolution, are best achieved through policies that promote economic and political freedom. You would think, almost 20 yeas after the fall of the Berlin Wall, that journalists would understand that.
Michael C. Moynihan is an associate editor of reason.
highnumber|2.22.08 @ 12:01PM|#
As I comment now, there is no link to the article.
(Hey! I saw him talking about this piece!)
|2.22.08 @ 12:16PM|#
You would think, almost 20 yeas after the fall of the Berlin
Wall, journalists would understand that.
No, I wouldn't.
|2.22.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Very excellent work, Mr. Moynihan.
You know, it's very easy to praise the revolution and its leader
when you don't have to live with the revolution and its leader.
No, I would never be intereste|2.22.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Some journalists are probably angling for visas and US Treasury department permission to travel to Cuba so they can do a 2-month investigation on the topless beaches in Varadero.
|2.22.08 @ 1:32PM|#
C'mon folks. Cuba is a socialist paradise on Earth. There are probably less than 200 countries with a better standard of living. You right wing capitalist pigs are all alike.
|2.22.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Few leaders, having been on the front lines of history so
long, would be able to voluntarily step aside in favor of a new,
younger generation.
WOW. Just... wow. What a fucking retard.
technomist|2.22.08 @ 1:46PM|#
Great piece. By why did you hold back on his bloody adventures in Africa?
Rhywun|2.22.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Yep, good article. The only MSM piece I read on this occasion
was from the BBC (because it was listed first on Google News) and I
was left wondering if they were perhaps talking about some
other Castro.
Castro - and Che - they just have this strange appeal with certain
segments of the left (including the sort that go into journalism,
apparently) that goes against all logic. I've never been able to
understand it.
Bingo|2.22.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Great piece!
It might be easier to think of literacy as a tool of indoctrination
in this case. Much more efficient for a government to disseminate
their propaganda through written material than to have to
constantly repeat it verbally.
So when CNN praises their schools and health care, just translate
it as their indoctrination and universal worker-maintenance
programs.
Cuban|2.22.08 @ 2:31PM|#
I got a free hospital with no medicine and a Spanish translation
of Das Kapital and all it cost me were my freedoms!
Gracias, Fidel!
|2.22.08 @ 2:35PM|#
"Few leaders, having been on the front lines of history so long,
would be able to voluntarily step aside in favor of a new, younger
generation."
Few leaders have been on "the front lines of history" so long that
they think their doddering 76 year old brother is the new younger
generation. The guy is on death's doorstep, and if he dies, Cuba
just might have to have elections. And just might elect someone
other than the young whippersnapper Raul Castro. So more likely
Fidel wants to rule even from the grave.
Curious|2.22.08 @ 2:39PM|#
If Castro is in his 80s, shouldn't allt he journalist who fell
in love with him in the 1950s be at death door as well?
Why does he still get good press?
|2.22.08 @ 2:46PM|#
"Cuba improved, as have most countries, on some of these indices
in the years since the revolution. " Moynihan on Moynihan: Over at
Reason, writer M. Moynihan joins the left wing chorus of Castro
worship, taking special note that under his revolution that "Cuba
improved" on several measures of well being "since the revolution."
Oh Moynihan, you leftish dupe, you Castro booster!
Boy this is easy stuff!
But seriously, if we can get past the goofiness. Every press report
I heard had plenty of mentions of Cuba's one party rule, its
economic misery, etc. I guess it has to be a Miami late night
drunken burning of his likeness before some folks would be willing
to relinquish a charge of biased reporting...
It's just a fact that Cuba has made some pushes in some forms of
health care access and educational access. It's a fact that lots of
people on the island support Castro's regime. If people note that
while, as MM admits, noting Castro's oppressive policies, they are
just doing what reporters are supposed to do, tell what's going
on.
Sure, it's a fact that he does not allow elections or opposition
parties and uses horrible means to squelch dissent. Interestingly
I've seen many on H&R say that would not be so bad IF the
dictator ruled in a libertarian way on economics. Well, don't gnash
your teeth that many leftist socialists are just as stupid as to
wink at Castro's massive dump on democracy as long as he tends to
push some economic policies they like...
lunchstealer|2.22.08 @ 2:52PM|#
At the risk of redundancy:
Jose Serrano wrote:
Few leaders, having been on the front lines of history so long,
would be able to voluntarily step aside in favor of a new, younger
generation.
Technically, Congressman, when ceding to one's own brother, you are
voluntarily stepping aside in favor of the old, literally identical
generation. The only way that the generation being ceded to could
be any LESS different would be if he were to cede to his own twin
or clone.
|2.22.08 @ 2:58PM|#
It's easy to see why some Latin American nations would like a
douche like Castro and his wicked regime. And to note it does not
mean someone is under some bullshit left wing magic or something.
It just means trying to honestly see theh world and understand it
rather than spouting slogans and working upo easy hit pieces on the
right wing bogeyman of the day (Castro, MIchael Moore, Chavez, the
British and/or Candadian health care system).
GO to the CIA World Fact book (the CIA would certainly be the last
place to find false flattering stats on Cuba) and compare Cuba in
some areas, namely the ones that MM excorciates the press for
noting that Cuba has either 1. done well or is 2. admired in some
parts of the world, and it's obvious why this is the case. I'll
compare Cuba to Nicaragua where he has found some prominent
supporters:
Life Expetancy
Cuba-77
Nicaragua-70
Infant Mortality Rate
Cuba-6
Nicaragua-27
Literacy
Cuba-100
Nicaragua-67
If you were a doctor or educator in Nicaragua, you could see why
they might find Cuba to be a model worth learning from. Of course,
I think they should see that the loss of liberty is way too high a
price, but they can always fall back on what Pinochet et al.s
supporters say "yeah, but look at that progress in x [whatever
economic or political policy you value]."
|2.22.08 @ 3:10PM|#
What was the name of that NYT idiot who was head-over-heels for
Stalin back in the 1930's?
-jcr
Episiarch|2.22.08 @ 3:12PM|#
What the fuck is it about leftists like joe and Mr. Nice Guy
where they just have, have, to defend Castro (even if it's
only a little)?
WTF is wrong with you? What warps your minds so badly that you can
actually say with a straight face that Cubans have great healthcare
and the 100% literacy is just supergreat as opposed to, say, 90%
literacy and not fucking living in a communist
dictatorship?
This is why I can't take anything you say seriously, because if you
actually believe this shit, how demented are you?
Episiarch|2.22.08 @ 3:13PM|#
What was the name of that NYT idiot who was head-over-heels
for Stalin back in the 1930's?
Walter Duranty
Abdul|2.22.08 @ 3:15PM|#
What was the name of that NYT idiot who was head-over-heels
for Stalin back in the 1930's?
The editorial board?
Or maybe you're thinking of Walter Duranty.
|2.22.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Finally, a writer not enamored by Castro's so-called universal
health-care and education! Since when did spreading Communist
propaganda become the job of the American press? (Um, don't answer
that. Where's McCarthy when you need him?) People who believe that
Castro has created a literate, healthy utopia have obviously never
visited the island or talked to the people. Walk down the streets
of Havana (unaccompanied by the police/cronies) and you'll see and
hear the reality.
In Cuba last year, I met a man who had to bribe the ambulance
driver, the doctor, and medical technicians to treat his brother's
congenital heart defect--a condition that should have been caught
when he was little. Even at age 30, his condition was curable, but
because of all the red tape and inadequate facilities, he
died.
A woman I met there had the fortune of visiting Germany where saw a
friend in the hospital. She was so impressed by the cleanliness of
even the hospital's bathrooms, she photographed them to show her
friends in Cuba.
"Their public bathrooms are cleaner than our hospitals," she told
me with a shudder.
Later, she dramatically gagged whenever images of Castro appeared
on TV. (The only Cubans I met who liked Castro were Communist
youth, or those hired to hang out with the tourists.)
Sure, there is health care and education--but the decent hospitals
with medicine and good doctors are reserved for the governmental
ruling class. The education system is a machine that churns out
doctors and teachers, but the good ones leave the island for better
paying jobs in Latin America, and the quality of education is
plummeting. Like a poster said above me, literacy just makes
indoctrination easier.
The Cuban government dictates many facets of their lives--their
profession, their news, and whether they can leave the country with
their whole family (or even leave at all).
The Department of Control segregates Cubans and tourists. Cubans
can't invite foreigners to stay in their homes (they're fined $1200
per foreigner if caught). They can't go into hotels (except maybe
on their honeymoon). They can't even talk to tourists. We witnessed
a young man's arrest for merely guiding us through the
streets.
If this is Utopia, kill me now.
|2.22.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Hey MNG why don't you compare those same figures to Costa Rica?
Thats a Carribean country that has had a functioning, liberal
democracy (and capitalist system) For a long time and has similar
outcomes to Cuba.
BUT THEY HAVE A HIGHER GDP THAN CUBA! Well, no shit. Communism
tends to make you poorer.
|2.22.08 @ 3:24PM|#
On that note, its worth noting that health outcomes and literacy stop correlating strongly with GDP after a certain point (usually lower middle income). Thats how a lot of Latin American countries have life expectancy figures close to North American/European standards despite being much poorer.
|2.22.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Mr Nice Guy said:
Sure, it's a fact that he does not allow elections or
opposition parties and uses horrible means to squelch dissent.
Interestingly I've seen many on H&R say that would not be so
bad IF the dictator ruled in a libertarian way on
economics.
Um, can you name some of those H&R folks? Just curious.
|2.22.08 @ 3:32PM|#
I never said a dictatorship would be good.
I said if I HAD to choose between a Pinochet and a Castro, I'd take
a Pinochet.
I'd also prefer lethal injection to being electrocuted.
|2.22.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Episarich-you make my point for me. Look at my post, I refer to
Castro as a douche, as his regime as evil, and refer to him taking
a massive dump on democracy in Cuba.
But because I point out why a nation like Nicaragua may admire
Cuba's achievements post revolution, I'm defending Castro.
Well, yeah, I guess I'm "defending" him from over the top,
hyperventilating attacks that claim too much. What good are such
attacks anyway, other than red meat to the faithful, grrrr.
I can put it this way: why is it when joe or MNG or x points out
that an attack on Castro/Chavez/Satan is over the top we are
suddenly attacked for "defending" these people. Can't you hate
Castro without going over the top (I do and can)?
Cesar-I agree, Costa Rica is the model. If a Costa Rican prefered
Cuba to his nation I would wonder about his sanity (though I can
understand the often found sentiment in nations with
service/tourism economies to stick it to those bastards whom puke
you have to clean up after they throw up their watered down Tom
Collins, even if such sticking meant your GDP per capita might come
down).
Costa Rica btw is hardly a libertarian paradise:
"Autonomous state agencies enjoy considerable operational
independence; they include the telecommunications and electrical
power monopoly, the nationalized commercial banks, the state
insurance monopoly, and the social security agency. Costa Rica has
no military by constitution but maintains domestic police forces
for internal security. "
Lurker-take a look at the thread on the Democratic Primary last
night, or any thread recently concerning Pinochet around these
parts. Many say "yeah, he allowed no democracy, but was way better
than Allende or Chavez because he stuck to free market principles"
of the like. Puke indeed...
|2.22.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Didn't you say between Pinochet and Chavez? Cause that's a
different story. I'd take current Venezula, where I could vote, run
an opposition newspaper, call the U.S., etc., over Pinochet and his
one party shoot dissenters nation.
Choosing between Pinochet and Castro is like choosing between
getting kicked by a bull or a male cow.
|2.22.08 @ 3:41PM|#
MNG I never said it was a paradise. I said it was a nation with
similar demographics to Cuba with the same life expectancy and
literacy AND a wealthier economy.
But leftists never talk about Costa Rica. They talk about Cuba.
|2.22.08 @ 3:43PM|#
MNG I'd choose Pinochet because I'd probably end up with a better standard of living as long as I kept my mouth shut. I'd have to keep my mouth shut under Chavez too but I'd also be made poorer.
|2.22.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Both Pinochet and Castro were about as bad as it gets regarding
personal freedoms and liberties (remember I don't necessarily think
personal freedoms="economic freedoms", I mean your traditional Bill
of Rights stuff).
Under Pinochet you could be a waiter at the resteraunt that catered
to foriegn investors and make more money than the poor cuban guy
who doesn't get enough vitamins and is going blind but can get free
check ups and was taught to read...
They both suck.
Episiarch|2.22.08 @ 3:45PM|#
MNG, the fact that you point to 100% literacy as some kind of
"positive" thing amongst all else is what makes you fucking
demented. If you can't understand that, I can't help you.
I'll try, though: imagine if I said that, oh, say, Mussolini was a
fascist, but after all he did make the trains run on time. Would
you think I was insane? Because that's what you sound like when you
say "yes he is bad but he does provide 100% literacy!"
|2.22.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Life Expetancy
Cuba-77
Nicaragua-70
Infant Mortality Rate
Cuba-6
Nicaragua-27
Literacy
Cuba-100
Nicaragua-67
Which of those two nations would rather live in, MNG? Those are
your only options. Shithole Nicaragua or socialist paradise
Cuba?
Well?
|2.22.08 @ 3:48PM|#
Who are these leftists that always talk about Cuba? Every
professor I heard on the news in regards the Castro story often
mentioned his one party rule, his sham elections, his illegal
detentions...
Even Michael Moore's main point was that hey, here is this shithole
and it gives its people better access to health care. That and some
tomfoolery about the Cuban people themselves not being evil and
bad...
|2.22.08 @ 3:49PM|#
For the record, 100% literacy is impossible. If you believe it, you lack basic reasoning skills.
|2.22.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Michael Moore is such a fat-assed tool. Whoever suggested the
Cuban people were "evil" or "bad" in this country aside from a few
crackpot racists?
That little hospital he was in was a show hospital, btw. Its not
one Cuban citizens use.
|2.22.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Epi-I dunno, I think being able to read is important to quality
of life. Yes, I would surely waive the right to make a little more
money cleaning up frat boy spring break puke at some resort owned
by a rich fat foriegn investor if I got the ability to read from
that...
J sub D-I'd prefer a Scandanavian socialist paradise, but if I had
to choose between the two I would pick Nicaragua because unlike
Cesar, I value the political freedoms more than I do any free
health care of schooling I may get in Cuba (btw-I don't think said
schooling or health care would be high quality, but better than I
would get in Nicaragua).
|2.22.08 @ 3:53PM|#
I rounded all the numbers. Cuba's literacy was 99.8, much like
ours was 99.9.
You think the CIA was lying to make Cuba look great? Now THAT'S
demented...
|2.22.08 @ 3:58PM|#
"Would you think I was insane? Because that's what you sound
like when you say "yes he is bad but he does provide 100%
literacy!""
Good start, Episariach, now you have a general principle, let's
apply it neutrally, across the board to all like situated
particulars. Like all the people who say "of course Pinochet was
bad, but he did great things with inflation."
I'm not saying "yes he's bad but he has 100% literacy" am I? I'm
saying he's bad. And if you think the only reason Latin American
nations or leftists like some of his policies, it's not because of
some magic propaganda spell but because Cuba has done some good
things with health care and education.
My position, see above, is that doing good things about health care
and education does not make up for his general evilness. But
pretending he has not done these things is pointless and silly.
Matt Welch|2.22.08 @ 4:00PM|#
It's a fact that lots of people on the island support
Castro's regime.
How on earth do you know that? I guess maybe it depends on the
definition of "lots" ...
Episiarch|2.22.08 @ 4:00PM|#
MNG, people like you are really creepy:
Yes, I would surely waive the right to make a little more money
cleaning up frat boy spring break puke at some resort owned by a
rich fat foriegn investor if I got the ability to read from
that...
WTF are you talking about? You'd also be giving up your freedom.
But you're talking about cleaning up frat boy puke? Go back to
class warrior school, you didn't finish your education.
|2.22.08 @ 4:00PM|#
MNG Thats not incredibly impressive for that country given its
GDP.
Look at this scatter
graph.
See how life expectancy goes up dramatically at first when GDP
rises, and then just flat-lines, so extremely wealthy countries are
about the same as lower-middle income countries? Theres a similar
result with literacy rate/GDP. I'll try to post the scatter plot if
I can find it.
Episiarch|2.22.08 @ 4:03PM|#
But pretending he has not done these things is pointless and
silly.
Yes, Hitler was bad, but pretending he didn't do good things like
restore German pride and provide lots of work for people in
munitions factories is pointless and silly.
Episiarch|2.22.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Like all the people who say "of course Pinochet was bad, but
he did great things with inflation."
I have never said this and never will, so throw that argument
against someone who is delusional enough (such as yourself) to
praise a dictator for any reason.
|2.22.08 @ 4:37PM|#
I rounded all the numbers. Cuba's literacy was 99.8, much
like ours was 99.9.
And both of those numbers are fabrications. If you can't read and
comprehend a Nancy Drew novel, you are not literate. Being able to
muddle through this
is not literacy.
Les|2.22.08 @ 4:40PM|#
My position, see above, is that doing good things about
health care and education does not make up for his general
evilness. But pretending he has not done these things is pointless
and silly.
I think what others are trying to say is that it's more
pointless to bring up a mass-murdering tyrant's debatable
improvements in health-care and education than it is to ignore
them. Personally, I think it's quite reasonable to ignore the
debatable accomplishments of mass-murdering tyrants.
|2.22.08 @ 4:44PM|#
And both of those numbers are fabrications.
No shit. I don't know about Cuba, but I have a hard time believing
that the literacy rate in the US is anywhere near 99.9%.
Sometimes I wonder if the rate's that high among Hit & Run
regulars.
|2.22.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Of course the Cuban government would never fudge the numbers for
literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc...
Anyone who believes that garbage is a complete moron. Cuban
hospitals are utterly filthy and have almost no medication on hand.
See Babalublog.
And infant mortality reporting differs greatly from country to
country. The OECD cautions against comparing the rate from one
country to another. See here:
While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, many other countries do not. For example, a 2006 artilce in U.S. News & World Report states, "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths... And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country." [2]
...Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country's documentation of perinatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics. This point is reinforced by the demographer Ansley Coale, who finds dubiously high ratios of reported stillbirths to infant deaths in Hong Kong and Japan in the first 24 hours after birth, a pattern that is consistent with the high recorded sex ratios at birth in those countries and suggests not only that many female infants who die in the first 24 hours are misreported as stillbirths rather than infant deaths but also that those countries do not follow WHO recommendations for the reporting of live births and infant deaths.[5]
|2.22.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Sometimes I wonder if the rate's that high among Hit &
Run regulars.
"You talkin' to me?"
|2.22.08 @ 5:10PM|#
"And if you think the only reason Latin American nations or
leftists like some of his policies, it's not because of some magic
propaganda spell but because Cuba has done some good things with
health care and education."
MNG, that's the problem right there with your argument: CUBA HAS
NOT DONE good things with health care (it sucks by any standards)
and any gain made in literacy has been minimal. Why do you chose to
ignore American in Cuba's post? Because a person there in Cuba, who
is not Michael Moore, is telling you things suck. I have been to
Cuba. It sucks. I have friends from Cuba and they tell me it sucks.
I know doctors here in Venezuela, who are from Cuba, and they will
secretely admit Cuba sucks.
What dont you get?
|2.22.08 @ 5:12PM|#
BTW, When I said Cuba sucks, I meant its healthcare system and general living standards. The island itself is beautiful but very poor.
|2.22.08 @ 5:18PM|#
I'd take current Venezula, where I could vote, run an
opposition newspaper, call the U.S., etc., over Pinochet and his
one party shoot dissenters nation.
Just hang on. Chavez still has his political police, and opposition
figures have a bad habit of showing up shot.
alan|2.22.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Interesting how the social democrat types have a knee jerk need to defend their hard line brethren when the favor is always returned with contempt and often with a bullet in the gut. It happened in Russia with the Mensheviks, and it occurred in Cuba as well where most of the political prisoners are really soft core leftist.
|2.22.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Moynihan,
Just as a point of clarification I would note that between 1964 and
1985 Brazil was ruled by a series of military governments.
|2.22.08 @ 6:00PM|#
About ten years ago I knew someone that went on a visit to
Cuba-- I think it was about ten days. They put him up with a Cuban
family and showed him various industries. He came back with a
pretty positive appraisal of the country. Basically, his opinion
boiled down to 'the people are poor, but noble and happy'.
Of course, he was a card-carrying member of the Young Communist
League. The trip was paid for by them and all aspects of it were
carefully controlled by the Cuban government. I took his experience
with an appropriately boulder-sized grain of salt.
I did ask him, since he felt it was such a great place, why he
didn't consider staying there permanently. He coughed a bit and
said he would like to, but it was more important for him to use his
status as a US citizen to spread the word to the outside world,
raise consciousness and facilitate the upcoming revolution, yada
yada yada.
I haven't seen him in a long time but understand that he has since
dropped all the YCL stuff.
|2.22.08 @ 6:18PM|#
Matt-how would you,or MM, know otherwise? It's not a free
nation, so there could never be a poll that would meet you or I's
criteria, so it can't be proved. But Castro certainly had popular
support at one time and while one would have to take into account
the repressive measures the regime take it's logical to suppose
that many people support the regime and like it or it would not
exist. After the USSR fell the membership in the Communist and
Stalinist parties didn't fade away did it? Even repressive regimes
that last for decades usually have some level of support. Our
nation has lost a bit of wagers that Castro did not have some
popular support, right?
The numbers are from the CIA Factbook not the Cuban embassy.
Everyone's aware of the dangers in comparing infant mortality
rates, though they are not worthless or incomparable (just like
crime rates or purchasing power), and that's why I included life
expectancy.
Epi-You don't have enough insight into human nature to see how a
service job make one feel, well, servile? And that many nations may
not like the raise in the GDP per capita if it comes with the price
of having to wait on some Costa Rica Spring Break
Frat-a-thon.
You think the literacy rates, for both nations, are just absolutely
worthless? Maybe 99 is not 99, but I bet the relative positions are
higher.
What kills me is that it is not enough for some of you to say
"Castro (or whoever) is wicked for his political abuses and crappy
human rights record", no the only thing that satisfies you is that
EVERY SINGLE THING that Castro has touched must immediately turn to
shit. If there is ANY evidence that SOMETHING the guy did WORKED,
then we must immediately denounce it as some left wing bullshit
plot....It must be that way, or else we end up praising
tyrants.
WTF?
|2.22.08 @ 6:19PM|#
After the USSR fell the membership in the Communist and Stalinist parties didn't fade away did it?
It did except for the elderly and party members who still wanted
their free checks.
|2.22.08 @ 6:27PM|#
Cesar-You're kidding, right? The cult of Stalin was everywhere
after the fall. The press over here covered it very well.
Think about it. Under a repressive regime, some people make out
like bandits (say, the CP members). Other's like the stability, or
they hated Batista, or what not (an easy thing to do). It may not
be a majority, but few regimes where everyone hates it survive
long...Why or how could it?
Why couldn't you think that Castro may have done something like
increased access to health care or literacy, if even for pr
reasons?
|2.22.08 @ 6:38PM|#
The cult of Stalin was everywhere after the fall.
Thats more authoritarian/Russian nationalist than Communist.
Especially since the CPSU leaders didn't think highly of Stalin
from Khruschev forward.
But yes, some people wish to be enslaved.
Les|2.22.08 @ 6:39PM|#
If there is ANY evidence that SOMETHING the guy did WORKED,
then we must immediately denounce it as some left wing bullshit
plot....It must be that way, or else we end up praising
tyrants...
Again, it's not that it should be denounced, it's that it should be
ignored. High literacy rates? It's irrelevant when you're not
allowed to choose what you read. Good health care? Besides the very
conflicting reports on this, it's irrelevant as it's occurring
within the confines of a totalitarian dictatorship.
And there's nothing in a totalitarian dictatorship that can work in
the same way in a free society. It's not even worth examining.
Let's look at Sweden's health care system or Finland's education
system if we're going to try to learn about what works and doesn't
work in a free society.
And you can't blame folks for spewing a fair amount of vitriol at a
murderous, totalitarian dictator. Of course, some of these same
spewers are quick to say, "Yes, but..." when it comes to people
like Pinochet, but that's another thread, I suppose.
|2.22.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Cesar,
Especially since the CPSU leaders didn't think highly of Stalin
from Khruschev forward.
Depends on the leader; there were always elements in the Soviet
government who would have like to have seen Stalin rehabilitated
and they came (if I recall correctly what I've read on the subject)
close to doing so on at least one occassion.
|2.22.08 @ 6:45PM|#
Calidore-
Yes, you could say the Brezhnev krewe was easier on Stalin than
Khruschev.
|2.22.08 @ 7:08PM|#
Go back to my first post. MM made the argument that the press
coverage of Castro stepping down was "bizarrely fond" because they
noted improvements (or let's say accomplishments) in health care
and literacy. My point was that for a reporter to mention these
accomplishments is just good reporting, as there is indeed a basis
in fact for that (I mane, even the CIA< hardly a fan of Castro,
acknowledged this).
So, you see, no Castro lovers here or there.
I also added how interesting it was that when someone with
collectivist economic leanings excuses a dictator because of the
economic change they may enact, that many libertarians have
professed being ok with a dictator that fosters markets. Remember
it's me that from the get go thought that yes, any economic
policies of a dictator don't justify his political suppression
because political rights are in my world the most important
ones...
As Cesar rightly pointed out above, comparing "which dictator I
would rather live under" should, to normal people, be a less than
exciting prospect. They are all terrible. Pinochet did not "save"
Chile from Allende any more than Castro "saved" Cuba from
Batista.
Having said that, yes I would prefer Venezula today (in spades
actually) to Chile under Pinochet, and while it is MUCH closer, I
would take Cuba over Pinochet. And what I said is that IF I was a
native and the only benefit I had to being in a freer market
society was that I got paid more as I served tourists (which is the
foundation for many governments that do "quite well" under markets
in these areas), then I might think Castro's preferable...Where do
you think the Latin American people's draw to Castro comes from?
They are just crazy or foolish dupes?
|2.22.08 @ 7:08PM|#
Mr Nice Guy:
It's a fact that lots of people on the island support Castro's
regime.
Really? How many times has Castro stood for election?
|2.22.08 @ 7:10PM|#
For the record the film that best encapsulates my opinion of Cuba, Castro and the Revolution is The Lost City by Andy Garcia. Hardly a ringing bunch of praise of any of it...
|2.22.08 @ 7:12PM|#
Malto
Remember in the Bay of Pigs, when the US was SOOO convinced that
every right thinking person must hate Castro because he was plainly
evil and bad, and so if a small force landed the people of Cuba
would rise up and join them to wipe the Revolution off the face of
history...
How'd that work out?
Point being, wishing don't make things better for the Cubans or
anyone, though it may make you feel better...
|2.22.08 @ 7:20PM|#
MNG,
Well, as noted, the accomplishments in both areas may be overblown;
and re: health care they may in fact not actually exist.
Where do you think the Latin American people's draw to Castro
comes from?
It seems to me that when push comes to shove - that is when people
are voting with their feet - that Latin Americans perfer other
countries - particularly the U.S. - to Cuba. And, if the constant
traffic of people from Cuba to the U.S. is any indication, many
Cubans perfer the U.S. to Cuba.
|2.22.08 @ 7:45PM|#
"Nice" Guy:
Again, how many times has Castro asked the Cuban people if they
want him to continue as their leader, by actually running for
election?
|2.22.08 @ 8:44PM|#
Malto-Uhhh,none. Castro is a bad man, I agree...
Has this bad man done things to firm up his support among the
Cubans? I should think yes,he'd be a dumbass if not. That is my
point: that opposing Castro does not mean you have to undermine
EVERY claim that he has done something good.
Calidore-don't serve oranges at an apple dinner...Do you deny that
Castro's regime is thought of favorably by a "lot" of Latin
Americans?
|2.22.08 @ 9:36PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
I've never seen an opinion poll on the matter. However, it does
seem that Cuba is not a place which many Latin Americans wish to
migrate to.
Anyway, I'm still not quite sure what your point is.
|2.22.08 @ 9:46PM|#
None. Thanks.
Hitler did some good things too, to "firm up his support among the
Germans". How'd that work out?
|2.22.08 @ 10:59PM|#
On the issue of Cuba's improved literacy and healthcare I ask, "By what standard are these improvements?". I honestly don't know about the quality of either one. I make the observation that if the quality for either is low to very low, then how difficult would it be to have high percentages in either? From what I'm reading on this thread the qualities of both are low if not very low. So, what are the qualifications for assigning high percentage rates for either of the above?
|2.22.08 @ 11:32PM|#
Tim Washburn
When Castro took power Cuba had the most advanced standard of
living in Latin America (by all measures, literacy, infant
mortality etc).
Fifty years later Cuba has one of the lowest GDP per capita (thank
God for Haiti) and on all the other measures a rough parity with
many other countries in the region.
The "Cuban Miracle" is pretty much a myth.
alan|2.23.08 @ 2:09AM|#
Mr Nice Guy,
Why would you bother to call yourself a liberal if your sentiments
are illiberal at best? Les hit it right on the nose. Liberals and
libertarians hold a firm line on matters of civil liberties (the
reason Thurgood Marshall is every bit a hero to me as Ludwig Von
Mises), but leftest don't necessarily, and in many cases do not
hold the line at all, in matters of civil liberties when they feel
liberties undermine a collective cause. The value of health care
for a Communist dictatorship is the same value a Rancher may have
in maintaining clean hooves for his cattle.
I know you may protest this, but the fact is you have ignored the
examples others have given, offered minor caveats at the same time
as you insist on finding value in Castro's Cuba when there isn't
anything worthy of any social emulation.
I suspect the value Cuba has for you in is that the manner health
care and education in Cuba are reported seems to undermine the free
market in the form of an alternative. However, the NYT, for one,
has been no more accurate in reporting conditions in modern Cuba as
it was in reporting about the healthy, glowing milk maidens of the
Ukraine in the 30's. Pull up issues from the 60's and you'll read
about the wonderful progress achieved in China as well.
And so what if there is support for Castro in Latin America? The
entire history of Latin America has been one of small gains and
huge set backs due to revolutions and juntas. As long as the
political game dominates over the development of market
infrastructures, Latin Americans will continue to be poor, until
she is ideologically spent, like Asia and Africa today, she will be
materially spent. In my life time, I have no doubt, I will see
Africa surpass South America in wealth, thanks in no small part to
the dominance of leftist sentiments in her elites.
A liberal will say, 'Fuck you, Castro', a leftist will say, there
are no enemies to the left of me.
economist|2.23.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Maybe in 50 years Hugo Chavez will officially resign as president of Venezuela.
|2.23.08 @ 3:38PM|#
I'll say this again, and very slowly for those having epilectic
fits trying to follow it: I ask again: are the CIA numbers for
Cuba's life expectancy, literacy rates, and infant mortality
bullshit? Are they fawning leftist propaganda? From the CIA?
Well, those very numbers indicate that Cuba has better measures
than many of their neighbors.
So when a reporter,reporting about Castro's Cuba, notes the
repression and such, but then also notes accomplishments in the
area of health care and education, they are reporting something
that has a basis in fact.
Which of course undercuts MM's criticisms of said reporters, and
was my point in the first place.
Issac-how do you figure this rough parity?
They have a infant mortality rate that is 4 times lower than
Nicaragua and El Salvador's for example (the first two nation's I
looked at). Their literacy rate is much higher than both as well,
and there is about a 7-8 year different average life
expectantcy...
|2.23.08 @ 3:42PM|#
"A liberal will say, 'Fuck you, Castro', a leftist will say,
there are no enemies to the left of me."
Like when, in my 2:58 post when I said:
"a douche like Castro and his wicked regime."
Or my 2:46 post where I say:
"many leftist socialists are just as stupid as to wink at Castro's
massive dump on democracy as long as he tends to push some economic
policies they like..."
Please pay attention next time...
|2.23.08 @ 4:11PM|#
MNG,
From what others have stated, the numbers in those areas were
already pretty good prior to the revolution. So the question is,
how much has actually been accomplished?
economist|2.23.08 @ 5:31PM|#
Generally, you don't have to imprison people on your island and send escorts with your citizens that you allow to travel abroad to make sure they don't jump ship, if things are great.
economist|2.23.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
Simply saying you don't like Castro doesn't really cut it if you
still defend everything about his regime. I'll say this again,
slowly, to you: If things are good in your country, you don't have
to coerce citizens into staying. In fact, if things were going so
much better in Cuba than elsewhere, there would be a lot of
immigrants trying to get in, rather than a lot of emigrants trying
to get out. This actually reminds me of all the times I've played
"Tropico".
economist|2.23.08 @ 5:41PM|#
And a comment on Castro's "massive dump on democracy".
I actually think the majority of Cubans support Castro and his
regime. I also think there is a significant minority that hates him
and his policies and everything that he has wrought in Cuba. They
are the ones trying to get out, or engaging in dissidence. However,
in a democracy, it doesn't matter what the minority thinks, as long
as your votes outnumber theirs. I think Castro has stayed in power
for fifty years because the majority supports him. I am not saying
it's right (in fact, in other threads I rip democracy for being to
open to majority tyranny), just that it's more democratic than you
think.
|2.23.08 @ 6:38PM|#
"Simply saying you don't like Castro doesn't really cut it if
you still defend everything about his regime."
Wow - what a nice, succinct, shamelessly dishonest summary of what
MNG has been saying. When did you stop beating your wife,
economist?
economist|2.23.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Well, J2, what would you summarize his comments as? And I don't beat my wife. Kind of an odd thing to think of, don't you think? Maybe you beat your wife and you're projecting onto me (or you're a man-hating woman who assumes anyone she disagrees with must be a man who beats his wife).
economist|2.23.08 @ 6:56PM|#
You see, J2, MNG's main criticism of Castro was that he didn't let his people vote before he nationalized everything. As I've said before however, I will take the individual right not to be killed and have my property seized before the political "right" to vote on it. MNG's world view is completely screwed up.
|2.23.08 @ 9:00PM|#
"MNG's world view is completely screwed up."
You don't appear to have a shadow of a clue what MNG's "world view"
is, economist. Just on this thread he's repeatedly, specifically,
and roundly criticized Castro's many oppressive policies; he's
called him "about as bad as it gets regarding personal freedoms and
liberties;" he's brought up his illegal detentions, abuses of
political enemies, and general human rights abuses. Yet you somehow
manage to claim (presumably with a straight face) that he's
"defend[ed] everything about his regime" and that "MNG's main
criticism of Castro was that he didn't let his people vote before
he nationalized everything." You're too busy soiling yourself in
righteous indignation over the suggestion that there might be some
small way in which Cuba isn't a complete hell on earth to bother
actually responding to the substance of his comments.
MNG summed it up well in his 3:38 PM post (and Episiarch helped
illustrate the point with his 3:12 PM post that MNG was responding
to). To some strange, deluded people, any statement about Castro or
Cuba that isn't 100% negative in every conceivable way is
interpreted as an apology for his entire regime.
economist|2.24.08 @ 1:35PM|#
"Personal liberty" doesn't mean shit if you don't have the right to own what you have. When the government has complete, arbitrary control of economic life, and everyone is subjected to forced economic equality, "personal freedom" is a farce, and usually is not even a long-lasting farce (though they've kept it up in Europe for about 50 years). And MNG complained mainly that Castro took power and hasn't had "free" elections since. My point is that even if elections are "free and fair", they can and often do lead to the same policies that have been in place in Cuba.
economist|2.24.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Also, given that Cuba has gone from being way ahead of the rest of Latin America to being only somewhat better, in some ways, based on dubious statistics, suggests that Castro's rule has had an overall deleterious effect. J2, I finally refer you to MNG comment#1, where his main criticism of Castro is his "dump on democracy". I really don't understand the faith in democracy that pervades the left (and much of the right). I have seen voters, and I sometimes get scared thinking about the power they have over me through their lackeys in government.
The Libertarian Guy|2.24.08 @ 3:56PM|#
"I hope he has the opportunity to meet Karl Marx very soon" - John McCain, uttering probably the only sane sentence during his entire Presidential bid
B|2.24.08 @ 4:16PM|#
The worst part about idiots like joe is not that they defend
Cuba whenever they can, rather it is the fact that they believe the
bullshit being peddled by the Cuban Government. Does anyone outside
of these stupid assholes actually believe that Cuba has the high
literacy rates it claims to have? Does anyone really believe its
life-expectancy data? Who and the fuck is verifying the bullshit
the Cuban government is claiming? Cuba's independent media? Oh,
wait...
And now we have a couple of assholes actually claiming that Cuba is
more democratic than we may think. As gauged by what, free
elections? A multi-party political system? For fuck sake, the guy
just handed over rule to his brother, yet someone on this site is
fucking dumb enough to claim this is a semblance of a democracy. I
guess you are too fucking stupid to be ashamed of yourself.
Castro has stayed in power for fifty years because he is a brutal,
thuggish murderer who cows the populace into submission, not
because he is a closet democrat, you fucking nitwit.
economist|2.24.08 @ 6:21PM|#
B,
I think the problem here is that joe and MNG are coming from a
viewpoint that any sort of tyranny is okay as long as it helps "the
people", the definition of which is usually,"the assholes who
couldn't make it themselves, so they take from others".
|2.24.08 @ 7:11PM|#
economist-I think J2 has actually ably defended my point of view
above...
Look, you don't like the claims of Cuba's high literacy rate, or
its health care claims. Well, go take it up with the CIA and many
other reputable sites that have little reason to falsify this kind
of thing in that direction. But a reporter is supposed to be as
objective as possible and if they take the CIA as a source over you
I just cannot then deduce that they are under the spell of
Castro...
I think "political" rights are superior to what many libertarians
call "economic rights" (I probably have more respect for such
rights than you imagine though). But I don't think the problem with
Castro is simply that he did not allow the Cuban people to vote
before he nationalized (why don't you prove that with some
references to posts above). I think he is bad because he is, well,
a dictator. He does not allow opposition, whether it be elections,
the existence of opposition parties or NGO's, opposition press,
rights of the accused, rule of law in general.
They have some good health care and education numbers, what can you
say? It doesn't threaten me and make me find the guy favorable. The
reasons I listed are more, more than enough to condemn him to Hell
100 times over. But not in your book, where the bad guys where
black hats without a speck of white and the good guys ride shining
white steeds...
economist|2.24.08 @ 8:03PM|#
"I think 'political rights' are more important than...'economic
rights'"
And now we see the difference between us. I value my right not to
have huge portions of my income seized and my property rights
threatened for the latest socialist craze while you value the right
to be a whiny twat calling for the latest socialist craze.
|2.24.08 @ 8:25PM|#
Wow, economist, you're really a complete asshole. I could sum up
your position by saying I value my right to actually have my own
independent beliefs and morals not dictated by the government,
while you value the right to make a buck because you're too
chickenshit to express an opinion that might get you locked up.
That would be at least as accurate and fair as the steaming pile of
shit you dropped at 8:03 PM.
I know it's a radical idea for you, but why don't you try for some
minimal level of intellectual honesty in your future posts?
Sean W. Malone|2.25.08 @ 1:26AM|#
I think "political" rights are superior to what many
libertarians call "economic rights"
MNG:
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about with all of
this... you keep claiming things like "Many Libertarians are ok
with dictators if they support capitalism" or this quote above with
"economic rights"
I've never heard a libertarian or a freedom-loving individual
ANYWHERE say that any dictator is ok or that some are better than
others because they are slightly more pro-market.
We base our philosophy primarily on freedom above anything else. It
comes almost directly from guys like David Hume who put freedom as
a more primary value to even life itself (the thought being that
death is preferable to slavery if those are to be your only
options... I agree). Furthermore, I've never heard any libertarian
talk about rights in any context that would separate economic from
political. Rights are all based on individual freedom. Economic
rights as you seem to want to divide them, come directly from basic
social individual rights like freedom of association and the right
to own property as defined by various precedents &
statutes.
This is one of the things you don't seem to get about why everyone
is pissed that you're defending (even in a small way) things that
Castro has done... If Cuba is better now than it was before Castro
in certain areas - ALL of it. EVERY LAST BIT... is outweighed by
the loss of rights. This isn't just an issue of not being able to
trade freely or own your own property - it's an issue of not being
free to make your own decisions in any meaningful form. It's all
interrelated!
Furthermore... the CIA world factbook is a fine source of data, but
you have yet to put it into the context of history. Sure, comparing
Cuba to some of the even shittier nations in Central & South
America and you find it's doing "ok"... but you have yet to compare
it to nations which have embraced a freer approach, like Costa Rica
now - nor have you bothered to compare it to itself 60 years ago!
By all the measures you used to defend the "positive" things
Castro's dictatorship has done, Cuba is worse off than it was
before he arrived...
This isn't about tearing down every last little thing, it's about
your (and others') tendency
towards whitewashing Castro's Cuba. Your argument that it's good
journalism to report on the "good" things is crap if each and every
one of those things is out of context. No analogy is even needed to
demonstrate the silliness of the whole thing. When you hear
reporters talking about Castro and using words like "the Cuban
leader" (which I just heard 5 seconds ago as I passed
through a news broadcast on TV), you can rest assured that that
isn't accurate journalism. The word choice is important... if you
say, as they just did, that Cuba has a "new leader", both those
words have meaning. New means different, which in the strictest
usage, Raul fits that definition. Leader, however, means something
noble and populist - in other words, a very bad word choice to
describe a totalitarian dictator.
There is absolutely nothing defensible about Fidel Castro, his
philosophies, his style of rule, his education system or his
hospitals. Nothing.
economist|2.25.08 @ 4:15PM|#
J2,
So caring more about working and making a living for oneself than
being an obnoxious twat is being "chickenshit"?
The Libertarian Guy|2.25.08 @ 7:59PM|#
"Castro has stayed in power for fifty years because he is a
brutal, thuggish murderer who cows the populace into submission,
not because he is a closet democrat, you fucking nitwit."
Funny, we have at least two presidential candidates who seem to
like Castro's economic policies... and God knows how many people of
either party who may secretly wet-dream about cowing the populace
into submission.
|2.27.08 @ 2:41PM|#
One of the reasons for all this is that the lazy rush to
Wikipedia.
Note a very recent Wikipedia delete:
"One should note that not all agree with this positive assessment
of Cuban health care system Hirschfeld, Katherine 2006 Health,
Politics, and Revolution in Cuba Since 1898 Transaction Publishers.
ISBN-10 0765803445 ISBN-13 978-0765803443 "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cuba
Current revision
The return of El Jigue
EJ has made a couple of postings here today (which have since been
deleted). Has his ban been lifted? GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 26
February 2008 (UTC)
No, his ban was permanent. However, because he uses an IP address
instead of a user account, the IP address was not blocked
indefinitely. I have reblocked it for six months, and if he returns
when that block expires it will be blocked again. As a banned user,
he is not allowed to participate in any way, which is why I
reverted his edits. Natalie (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2008
(UTC)
Just checking. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, on that note I think I'm going to archive some of this
old discussion. Anything that hasn't has a new comment for several
months is probably dead. Natalie (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2008
(UTC
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Michael C. Moynihan
- Driven Crazy, Michael C. Moynihan, November 3, 2009
- The Cold War Never Ended, Michael C. Moynihan, October 21, 2009
- Now Playing at Reason.tv: Whole Foods and Health Care, Michael C. Moynihan, October 15, 2009
Related Articles (Health Care, Latin America, Far Left)
- Obama’s Hidden Fees, Jacob Sullum, November 4, 2009
- Masterfleece Theater, David Harsanyi, October 30, 2009
- The Unhealthy 'Public Option', Steve Chapman, October 29, 2009
- Mandatory Savings?, Jacob Sullum, October 28, 2009
- Health Care Delusions, Left and Right, Steve Chapman, October 26, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245