Friday, January 20, 2012

Wilman Villar Mendoza (1980-2012)

"Villar Mendoza was charged with 'contempt' (desacato) and sentenced to four years in prison in a hearing that lasted less than an hour, his wife told Human Rights Watch. While she was allowed to attend the trial, dissidents who tried to enter the courtroom were denied access. Villar Mendoza was not given the opportunity to speak in his defense, nor was he represented by a defense lawyer, she said. His wife said he initiated his hunger strike to protest his unjust trial and imprisonment."

[Video of demonstration that landed Villar in jail, courtesy of Directorio Cubano Democratico]


Anonymous said...

Descansa en Paz Wilman. Tu muerte no sera en vano. La lucha seguira hasta que Cuba sea libre del tirano Castrista que la oprime hace 53 años.

Tijerón said...

Today Ninoska and Perez-Roura were discussing how the press always manipulates information. Specifically they referred to Romney's comment on how he doesn't care about the very poor (just google "Romney" and "Poor" for info).

Ninoska condemned the press for taking the quote out of context. Yes, the American press in general. Armando suggested it was a political mistake by Romney.

I suppose it would be great if you could address these issues:

1. How can Ninoska condemn all of the press of spin, thus separating Mambi from the entire media system? How can they all get the quote wrong except Mambi?

2. Ninoska and Perez-Roura play a good cop - bad cop routine at 8:30 am. She plays the "angered by all the injustice" role to perfection. Perez-Roura plays the more calm and subtle commentator. This is a psychological manouver: Given that all Cubans can't be persuaded by Ninoska's emotionality (as some listeners must be more cerebral), Perez-Roura is there to be the "go to" voice of these more skeptical or level-headed listeners.

Just some ideas.

Mambi_Watch said...

Thanks for reading and commenting.

There's some background here that is important and explains why Perez-Roura and Ninoska reacted differently to this story.

Despite his past support for Romney in 2007, Perez-Roura has tacitly given his full support to Newt Gingrich, mainly because of Gingrich's Cuba policy.

Meanwhile, just like many other Cuban hard-liners, Ninoska is backing Romney because of his "electability."

So, Perez-Roura is more willing to be critical of Romney because he feels Romney is not the best candidate, just as he felt that McCain was not the best candidate in 2008. And, Ninoska predictably defends her favorite candidate (especially since many Cuban exile leaders also support Romney).

The response wasn't a "good cop/bad cop" routine, it was a very apparent conflict of political interests inside Miami's hard-line community.

I'm working on a post about this, so I look forward to your comments then.