![[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i7tmcOiJ4hc/RoJ3zn0O-9I/AAAAAAAAAFw/5Y4WaIwDd6k/s1600/freedomtowernight_edited.jpg)
In Spite of Everything
Staying on the topic of Barack Obama and cults of personality, following is a translation of a great letter to the editor published in El Nuevo Herald by Fernando J. Milanés MD of Miami titled A pesar de los pesares (in spite of everything).
It's a fairly loose translation, but it gets the message across. (Click here for the original letter in Spanish).
It's a fairly loose translation, but it gets the message across. (Click here for the original letter in Spanish).
It is said that in Cuba there was a very colorful town judge. As the story goes, at the end of a trial in which a youth was accused of stealing hens, the judge made the following summary of the case:
- We've heard declarations by the owner of the hens, of witnesses who saw the accused enter and leave the hen house with a bag, and of others who saw the accused eating an exquisite chicken with rice (arroz con pollo). After evaluating everything, I absolve the accused of all matters.
Upon reading a recent letter in El Nuevo Herald and listening to my Democrat friends justify their passion for Barack Obama, I would suggest that for greater credibility they say the following:
- In spite of the lies expressed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright such as AIDS being spread by the U.S. government to kill blacks and that 9/11 was the United States' fault; that 9/11 was the subject of many anti-American and racially divisive sermons; that Rev. Wright belongs to a radical religious doctrine which is not representative of the majority of African-American churches; in spite of the fact that Obama, after attending his church for 20 years and having declared that the reverend was his spiritual advisor and friend, initially denied knowing about the sermons and only out of necessity for his political ambitions did he separated himself from them after they were leaked out by the media; in spite of the fact that Obama, who doesn't control the reverend but does control which religious service and which religious philosophy he wants to expose his family to, doesn't explain why he never left that church (ed. Obama DID explain, which makes it worse); in spite of the fact that in his eloquent rhetoric he preaches change and an ability to work with members of the Republican Party when nothing in his brief history as senator has demonstrated that he's accomplished such things, I'll still vote for Obama anyway.Fernando J. Milanés MD
Miami
posted by Robert at 11:15 AM
11 Comments:
Robert: You've been writing for babalu for how long?
And did you go down to Little Havana and flip off Code Pink with Henry and Val? Or do you approve of that behavior?
Do you agree with everything babalu espouses and their positions on all things?
You must because you write for them and you drink beer with them.
Right?
.
Of course we don't agree on everything. That's common sense and is hardly worth mentioning. It's safe to say that we do agree on most important issues, which is much more than I can say for Mr. Obama.
Robert, I think that Rick is trying to say, in his typically murky way, that Obama shouldn't be characterized by the company he keeps. Right, Rick?
But in that case I would ask, Why not? Obama could have chosen to belong to another church. He could choose not to refer to Farrakhan as "Minister Farrakhan." He could have chosen to repudiate Wright without hedging.
Robert, I think it's fair to say that while you disagree with Val and Henry about some things, you agree with them on most of the important things. Obama's problem is that his behavior suggests that he either doesn't believe in anything, or that he agrees with Wright on some important issues where Wright is at odds with most American voters. This is not a problem that can be easily explained away.
Jonathan: the point, the VERY obvious point, is that while you may associate with people on a regular basis, it doesn't mean that you share all their viewpoints on all things. Obama has explained himself on this a number of times but 19%ers continue to use it to characterize him as a "Wright, Jr." or to criticize his judgment.
But if we're going to use your reasoning, Jonathan, than what we need to say is that you and Robert support flipping off women who are expressing views that you don't agree with. Both you and Robert could have distanced yourselves from the rest of the babalu staff over the years because of things you've had disagreements on, but you haven't, and that can only mean that you approve of everything that they do. Right? Of course not.
Again, Obama has explained this a number of times. Rev. Wright has been a pastor for years and has made countless speeches and it's the 1 or 2 minutes that Republicans have devoted all their energies to in order to discredit him and Obama.
I wouldn't expect anything more...it's politics, after all. But guys, really, don't you think this story has run its course and it's time to start focusing on another one. There's gotta be a story about Obama's hair you can dig up.
.
Obama's association with Wright is important because it is consistent with ample other evidence -- his deference to Farrakhan, his refusal to wear an American flag pin or salute during the Pledge of Allegiance, his ignorance about and hostility toward free markets, his rhetorical sleight-of-hand in trying to change the subject from his association with Wright to Americans' supposed urgent need to have a discussion about race, his wife's statements -- that consistently points to either fundamental ambivalence about his country or lack of principle in going along with identity politics.
You also mischaracterize Wright, whose history of using racially offensive and anti-American rhetoric is extensive, not a mere matter of "1 or 2 minutes." Surely the great snarkmeister, whose astonishing powers of perception detected racism in me because I once suggested that briefly detaining an Iraqi truck driver for not having ID when entering the Port of Miami might have been a reasonable thing to do, could find something seriously amiss in Wright's long-term behavior? But no, it's time to move on!
But if we're going to use your reasoning, Jonathan, than what we need to say is that you and Robert support flipping off women who are expressing views that you don't agree with.
WTF are you talking about?
Both you and Robert could have distanced yourselves from the rest of the babalu staff over the years because of things you've had disagreements on, but you haven't, and that can only mean that you approve of everything that they do. Right? Of course not.
I don't have to distance myself from anybody. I'm happy to state and defend my positions when asked to. Should I publicly repudiate my friends because we disagree on some issues? No, that would be ridiculous. I'm not running for President. If I were, and someone asked me about my association with Robert or Val, I would say that I agree with them about many things and probably disagree with them about some things. But they are reasonable guys and not hatemongers like Wright. I don't have friends like Wright. And when someone asks me about my friends I don't try to weasel out of giving a straight answer, as Obama has done.
The bottom line is that Obama is running for an office where personal character is paramount, and he tries to avoid giving straight answers to serious questions about his character, and that fact doesn't seem to bother you.
Rick, I think you ask these questions as a test of sorts, because surely you understand that there's a difference between friends/cohorts disagreeing over relatively minor things, and keeping a friend/pastor who believes in very bad and ridiculous things. You just can't put everything under the same scale.
No, I really do think that the principle that we're discussing here, that is, judging someone by the company they keep, is the same. Your application, where you hold some people accountable for everything their associates say and do and others accountable for virtually nothing their associates say and do, is inconsistent and biased.
If you're going make Obama accountable for what Wright said, then YOU have to take responsibility for the actions of your friends and fellow writers. That's consistency.
And, Jonathan, let's pretend for a minute that an anti-American racist, as you believe Obama to be, wasn't going to be the Democratic Party's nominee.
Really, would you even consider voting for a Democrat? Or would you still continue to cough up whatever talking points conservatives would invent for that candidate?
I'm not asking anyone to move on from the fact that Americans are being totally hoodwinked by this black man who could be a Muslim (OH NO!) and who is a racist (OH NO!!) and who doesn't love his country (DOUBLE OH NO!!!). I'd like for people like you to remember all these things, move on to your next little scandal, and then vote Republican like you would do anyways in November.
.
If you're going make Obama accountable for what Wright said, then YOU have to take responsibility for the actions of your friends and fellow writers. That's consistency.
No, that's a non sequitur. Consistency would be for me to be concerned about the personal associates of the other presidential candidates as well as of Obama. I'm not trying to make the candidates accountable, but rather to evaluate their character, and for this purpose it is reasonable to look at the company they keep.
And, Jonathan, let's pretend for a minute that an anti-American racist, as you believe Obama to be, wasn't going to be the Democratic Party's nominee.
No, I said that Wright is an anti-American racist and that Obama is ambivalent about his country. Can't you read?
Really, would you even consider voting for a Democrat? Or would you still continue to cough up whatever talking points conservatives would invent for that candidate?
I'll vote for whoever I think is the best candidate according to my own criteria. I don't have to follow your rules. When the Democrats stop running socialists, crooks and poseurs for President I will consider voting Democratic.
You keep returning to the idea that I am some kind of Republican robot, when anyone with half a clue can see that I disagree with the Republicans on many issues but vote for them as the lesser of evils. Do you think I want to vote for McCain?
Can't you read?
Actually, that's a question usually posed to Cuban-Americans who have immigrated to this country. Just ask Robert.
I'll vote for whoever I think is the best candidate according to my own criteria.
Which, by this statement...
Do you think I want to vote for McCain?
....and the looks of your totally partisan writing here and at Chicago Boyz is anyone with an "R" after their name.
And that's the most important thing to understand when you start posting or commenting, Jonathan. No matter who is the Democratic candidate, you will always be critical of them, you will always be biased and you will always demand that they meet standards and principles that conservatives and you yourself don't abide by or even deem important unless they are raised to criticize Democrats.
Maybe you won't admit to it, and that's fine, no matter how frustrating it is for those trying to reason with you. But it's there, whether you recognize as such or not.
One other thing, people of your ilk, Jonathan, don't have the nuts to come right out and say that Obama is anti-American or racist or a danger to this country. Instead you continue to highlight his association with Wright, or you mention his middle name or you point out that he doesn't wear a flag pin. And you all repeat these things over and over and over again.
Grow some nuts and say what you really think or just stop with the cowardly insinuations.
.
From AnimalPolitics:
“Can the United States be any more Communistic?” barks the burly man rockin’ a Rutgers cap outside a Hollywood post office. This is independent filmmaker Luis Moro. He’s been called everything from a fucking bastard Communist to a global hero and he is crazy angry. Moro shot a feature film in Cuba without Castro’s approval, without U.S government approval, and he just learned he can’t mail his Cuban cousin a package of socks. “I finally did what no one else has done, what no one could do. And the government, well they’re stumped. In Hollywood they say ‘you did what?’”
Look on IMDB and you’ll find any narrative feature made in Cuba is a co-production with another country, approved by Instituto Cubano del Arte e Industrias Cinematográficos. Not Moro’s “Love and Suicide” which screened in Miami and Los Angeles. The flick, which eluded critical acclaim, remains an introspective look at how Americans are regarded in Castro’s Cuba. In it Moro plays the roll of a cabbie who befriends-and makes money off- a suicidal American visitor.
After pulling off his cinematic coupe Moro has been called on the carpet by the Feds for violating trade sanctions but citing his constitutional right to return to his birthplace, he’s not folding. “Oliver Stone- hypocrite! He paid them. He got the same letter I did,
but I’m not bending over like him” says the street wise producer who learned his trade organizing shows at the old New York Coliseum. “I got things done, dealing with Teamsters (and the mob) and I make things happen.”
Reacting to a recent Charlize Theron production that boasts having been shot in Cuba, Moro says “they had the full support of the Cuban Government! What’s the big deal? “I can make five of them with the footage I have from Cuba.”
Moro’s hope is now in Obama. He introduced himself at a Crenshaw Los Angeles appearance and pitched his cause to the candidate. “I told Obama I know how you can win Florida. If Cuba was white there would be no embargo. I was born in Cuba and the majority of the people in Florida want the embargo to end. “That got his attention and I know he took it to heart.”
Moro followed up, visiting Washington D.C in June, not to settle with the US Treasury Department (the federal branch with jurisdiction over the trade embargo) but to meet the Latin American Workers Group and to bring Congressional whip Charles Rangel on board. While there Moro swung by Obama’s senate office dropping a pile of “Love and Suicide” DVDs. ” A couple months later Obama came out against the embargo.
He dismisses Michael Moore’s documentary as grandstanding. “That representation of Cuba is bullshit” says Moro. His uncle languished in a Cuban hospital-not the Havana hospital Moore touts-and he shot video showing the almost medieval conditions in which he died of stomach cancer. Moro cools down and shooting a broad Hollywood smile tells ANIMAL “they love my movie in Cuba, you know? Now how has anyone there screened Love and Suicide? Moro sent five hundred DVDs to Cuba “But I sent them through France.”
No Underwear, Soup Packages to Cuba
In government documents shown to ANIMAL, Luis Moro is served in a civil action, with the state department demanding penalties for his travel to Cuba.
An internal Post office memo shown to ANIMAL alerts USPS employees to question customers attempting to send mail to Iran, Sudan and Cuba. In the Cuban enclaves of Miami Florida and Union City, New Jersey, Cuban Americans have routinely sent care packages to struggling relatives in Cuba (The number one item shipped? Knorr Chicken Bouillon). Now the piecemeal stream of socks, underwear and oodles of noodles now been cut off, and it remains unclear exactly why. “Basically you can only send letters to Cuba” Molly Millerwise, a spokeswoman for the United States Department of the Treasury told ANIMAL. The two postal authorities, US and Cuba- have agreed to mail envelopes; letters can be mailed no problem. “Packages, there are prohibitions on but its nothing new. We don’t allow Cuban goods in and we maintain economic sanctions against Cuba” explained Millerwise. “Treasury hasn’t changed the policy, the USPS has changed” a Treasury agent told ANIMAL “its been on the books for decades, they’ve only started to enforce it.”
Anyone who is looking for an exception can appeal to the Office of Foreign Asset Control for a license or special permission but we haven’t heard of anyone whose gotten an exemption. So if you’re trying to send socks to your uncle, let us know.
http://animalnewyork.com/features/2008/04/guerrilla-filmmaker-has-hope-i.php
www.morofilms.com
And that's the most important thing to understand when you start posting or commenting, Jonathan. No matter who is the Democratic candidate, you will always be critical of them, you will always be biased and you will always demand that they meet standards and principles that conservatives and you yourself don't abide by or even deem important unless they are raised to criticize Democrats.
As usual you go straight for the ad hominem attack and ignore the substance of my arguments. You provide no examples of my supposed double standard. Nor do you acknowledge the most likely possibility for my support of Republican candidates: they are generally better on the issues than Democrats are. The problem isn't me, it's that the Democratic Party persists in running lousy candidates. My choices this year are 1) an unprincipled crook who is personally weak, 2) a socialist who is personally weak and has an anti-American streak (and who, like candidate 1, is weak on national defense, wants to raise taxes, kill NAFTA and embark on a destructive trade war with one of our strongest Latin American allies), and 3) a flawed Republican moderate who is nonetheless a man of honor and great courage, who is pro-free trade, strong on national defense and doesn't think we should negotiate with Ahmadinejad. Of course I'm going to vote for McCain. When the Democratic Party runs Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh as presidential candidates I will consider voting for them, but it's not my fault that the Democrats insist on running lousy candidates to please left-wing idiots. In other words: I'm not the problem, your Party is the problem. It's going to keep losing presidential elections until it starts running reputable adult candidates.
And do yourself a favor and save the posturing about how I should grow nuts or whatever. It just makes you look more foolish. I mean, God forbid you should respond to the substance of my arguments instead of using your amazing mind-reading skilz on my supposed motives. It's not like I actually explain my positions clearly, after all.
Post a Comment
<< Home