Punishing Ozzie Guillen for Being Himself [Updated]

Cuban exiles in Miami have every right to be offended by the remarks of Ozzie Guillen, but not the right to punish him and the Miami Marlins for it. If they truly are believers of human rights (and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), then Cuban exiles should understand that punishing Guillen would constitute a violation (as interference) of his "right to freedom of opinion" (Article 19). Also, as devout Christians, Cuban exiles should accept Guillen's public apology, forgive him and withdraw any threat of sanction. If Guillen is punished for his personal opinions the example of hypocrisy would have negative effects for the entire Miami community. Instead, the Miami Marlins should take advantage of the moment and make extraordinary gestures to resolve several problems it already has with the entire Miami community since the construction of their new stadium in Little Havana.

BEING OFFENDED

In a recent interview with Time Magazine (Sean Gregory), Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen made these remarks: "I love Fidel Castro... I respect Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that (expletive) is still here."

In Miami, any positive comment about Fidel Castro marks you for ostracism. This is mainly due to current U.S. policy that still characterize the leaders of the Cuban government as official enemies, a large Cuban exile community that has made their suffering at the hands of the Cuban government a core part of their collective identity and a local media that regularly presents negative stories and views about Cuba.

In some sectors of Miami, some are still at war with the Cuban government. And that means Fidel Castro is the worst enemy of all (guilty of worse crimes than Hitler according to Armando Perez-Roura of Radio Mambi). Therefore, to speak positively about Fidel Castro is a virtual crime for some in Miami. And, being offended is only the beginning.

PUNISHMENT

The controversial comments by Ozzie Guillen were quickly noticed by the local Spanish media on Friday, but only today did local leaders react. While Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado has accepted Guillen's apology, other Cuban exile leaders, like Miami-Dade County Chairman Joe Martinez [PDF] and Miami City Commissioner Francis Suarez [PDF] have written letters demanding Guillen's resignation or removal as manager. The county mayor, Carlos Jimenez, has called for some action, but did not demand a resignation.

Concerning public opinion, local Spanish news station Univision 23 conducted an online poll showing a 58% majority (from over 300 votes) favoring some form of company sanction against Guillen, but not specifying the kind. (By comparison, an online poll from Chicago, Guillen's former home, showed 58% favoring no punishment at all.) And, a Miami Herald online poll found a majority of readers (56% from over 1000 votes) disagreed that Guillen should resign.

FORGIVENESS

There are some who are willing to give Ozzie Guillen a second chance. One of them is Cuban exile and Baseball Hall of Fame announcer Felo Ramirez. Ramirez is the official voice of the Miami Marlins games heard on Radio Mambi and greatly admired throughout the community for his radio work. Last year, he was awarded with a street-naming near the construction of the new Miami Marlins Stadium.

And, today Ramirez revealed on Spanish-language radio ("Prohibido Callarse" show on WQBA) that he had personally forgiven Ozzie Guillen for his controversial comments and hoped that everyone would give Guillen a chance to explain himself (Univision23 report). Guillen will have that opportunity on Tuesday morning in a Miami press conference.

From another personal perspective, local sports reporter Will Manso (WPLG) writes that he has known Ozzie Guillen for years and is confident that "Guillen wasn't trying to say he was pro-Castro," as many in Miami are interpreting it. Manso also says: " I think when people see his sincere apology, this issue will die down and Guillen and the team can go on with the season."

Every person deserves forgiveness. At its foundation it assumes that every free person can change for the better, and therefore the act provides freedom and hope for all. But, if one is threatened with punishment for being offensive, then it assumes that freedom is conditional and that some people don't have the capacity to freely improve themselves.

RECONCILIATION

If our local leaders consider the principles of human rights, their own personal religious beliefs, and of course the opinions of the public, then I see a good outcome: Guillen will be forgiven, the Miami Marlins will be given a chance to make amends, and community relations will improve.

Its an ideal scenario, and it could serve as an example for the future when the U.S. attempts reconciliation with Cuba. From another angle, Guillen's comments did provoke something that has been totally missed by the media: the many failed assassination attempts against Fidel Castro, some which included assassination attempts by the U.S. government during the 60s and should be considered violations of "basic constitutional principles" and "traditional American beliefs" (Jones, 2008). Failed U.S. operations during the 60s to overthrow the Cuban government also helped Fidel Castro present himself as an effective and morally superior revolutionary leader for years to come.

In a 2008 BBC report, one young Cuban rapper expressed that "Fidel is an idol for me." The article reported that "many [young Cubans] still respect [Fidel Castro] as the leader of the revolution and the man who has defied the United States time and again."

Americans and Cuban-Americans will have to confront these opinions at some point in the future. They won't be able to condemn or punish all of them as easily as Ozzie Guillen. These are Cubans expressing and being themselves. So how will they reconcile with those opinions? The result of Tuesday's press conference should give us an indication.

--- [Update] ---

Ozzie Guillen was given a 5-game suspension by the Miami Marlins (supported by Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig) and apologized several times before a Miami press conference Tuesday morning. You can listen to most of the event here. Response to English questions begin at the 10:30 mark.

Guillen partly blamed translation errors for his published controversial comments. In response to one question Guillen clearly denied saying "I love Fidel Castro." Another reporter brought up a 2008 interview where Guillen said "I admire [Fidel Castro]." Guillen responded today by saying "I don't admire him. How can I admire him?"

Guillen also mentioned that he met with some Cuban exile members before the press conference (members of the Ladies in White and the Cuban American National Foundation according to this report) where during their discussion Guillen received "advice" and "learned a little bit more about the Cuban regime." Guillen described how during their conversation he felt shame in front of them, unable to look directly into their eyes.

Near the end of the press conference Guillen concluded: "What I [think] is that [Fidel Castro is] a person that the whole world hates. Including me. And I hate him for the harm he has done towards many Latinos and many people of his country."

--- [Update 2] ---

Angel de Fana, one of the founding members of the Cuban exile organization Plantados, today revealed that he was one of the invited guests that had a private meeting with Ozzie Guillen before this morning's press conference. Appearing on the MegaTV political talk show "Tres Caras de la Moneda" (Three Sides of the Coin), Angel de Fana described a group of about 7 to 8 guest that had been invited to personally receive Guillen's apology. De Fana said he though Guillen's apology was sincere and then the group suggested a way for Guillen to possibly repair his relationship with Cuban exiles: become active with "la causa." Speaking out publicly about the Ladies in White and Cuban political prisoners were two examples mentioned.

In a related report by Telemundo51, Marilys Llanos interviewed another Cuban exile that was invited to personally meet with Ozzie Guillen this morning: Ladies in White member Maria Elena Alpizar. She told Telemundo51 that she forgave Guillen for his sincere apology, and described how the invited guests had advised Guillen to become more involved with Cuban exile groups. Specifically, after describing Guillen as a wealthy man, Elena Alpizar said that if Guillen helps out these groups monetarily, they would be willing to help out Guillen make amends within the exile community.

--- [Update 3] ---

Some other interesting articles and video over the suspension of Ozzie Guillen:

- "Can Miami Speak Freely on Castro?" by Fernando Peinado (BBC Mundo)

- USA Today article by Paul White; includes an online poll with over 7000 votes, and a three-way split over whether Guillen's remarks were fairly dealt with.

- Excellent points made by sports writer David Zirin in a Current television interview.

- El Show de Fernando Hidalgo on local Miami station AmericaTeVe performs a song calling for the "total suspension" of Ozzie Guillen.

--- [Update 4] ---

According to three online polls and one telephone survey by ESPN, the majority opinion after Ozzie Guillen's suspension is that the suspension was either too harsh or fair (above 60%). The minority opinion believes Guillen should be fired or suspended much longer. It's a stark contrast to what Miami leaders, like Commissioners Joe Martinez and Francis Suarez, the Hialeah City Council and the Latin Builders Association have demanded: Guillen's resignation. But its not surprising to see our political leaders not representing the voice of the people.

Here's a screen shot of the three online polls together. The first on the left is from the L.A. Times, the next one is from The Miami Herald and the last on the right is from the Radio Mambi (Univision Radio) website.

The ESPN phone survey is the most specific and informative. It found that "nearly two-thirds of Miami residents, and 56 percent of Cuban-Americans, think Guillen should keep his job."

---

Finally, it seems that El Mundo reporter Rui Ferreira managed to upload some videos of the morning protest in front of the Marlins Stadium. In one video, you can see how a supporter of Guillen's right to freedom of expression is harassed by anti-Guillen demonstrators as she leaves the stadium.



[Photo by Getty Images]

"Hooked" by Tijerón

[Time for a post from a reader of Mambi Watch*. Thanks to Tijerón for his submission which I found interesting to read as another listener of Radio Mambi. If anyone else would like to submit stories just e-mail me. It can be it critical or supportive of Spanish-language media in Miami covering Cuba.]


“Poor bastard.” I think that’s the closest translation in English. Ninoska Perez-Castellon on Radio Mambi likes to say “poor bastard” (pobre infeliz) a lot.

When she informs her Miami audience that a Cuban is waiting to receive construction material from the regime, or when discussing how doctors are exported to Venezuela for oil, or when sex-tourism, Cuban athletes or island godlessness are dissected, anyone living in Cuba is labeled a "poor bastard" if they are not fighting against Castro.

“Poor bastard.” It means their existence both saddens and offends her. Yet, she is far more offended than saddened since her solution for Cubans, other than US invasion, is to starve them until they successfully revolt or die. Anything perceived as compromise or conformity inside Cuba is intolerable. So, she labels them the way she pleases.

Ninoska’s views became clear to me one day when listening to her radio show. A caller who had recently arrived from Cuba had this to say:

"Why don't Cubans in Miami want to help us? You are against tourists coming here, against anyone who sends money to the island. We need help!"

Ninoska replied:

"Any money going to the island helps prolong the Castro-communist regime. You are a product of a system that degenerates the human spirit. The only way to free Cuba and Cubans is to cut the resources of the state."

When I first heard this I did not know what to make of it. Now, everyday the shock of Radio Mambi rivals reality TV and video games.

As a Latin American that has never before cared about Cuba, today I’m hooked on the biggest political battle local Hispanic media has to offer; where political ideology hammers mutual empathy and understanding daily.

[*Edited by Mambi Watch]

In Defense of the Cuban Five [Updated Links]

It was the little billboard that couldn't. It survived only a day until enough people threatened to boycott the owners arguing that it was an offense to the community. Suddenly it was gone. I myself was surprised that this billboard was actually up in Miami, knowing well that this city, when it comes to news about Cuba, lives in an almost impenetrable bubble. You can't deny it. The very mention of the Cuban Five in Miami evokes comparisons to the worst criminals, like Hitler or Al-Qaeda. The result of course is a city that dares not confront such taboo subjects, and its citizens, without much choice, acquiesce to a propaganda message repeated in the local media.

But, Mambi Watch believes people have the right to choose their political causes, and be given the right to defend their causes in public and in the media. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Cuban Five, this right is hardly observed.

THE BILLBOARD OF DISCORD

The story of the billboard, dubbed the "Billboard of Discord" by America TeVe show "A Mano Limpia," is simple to summarize: A local Miami group called Alianza Martiana (Marti Alliance) rented space on a billboard to promote the cause of the Cuban Five. They paid a month's rent to Clear Channel Outdoors and the company placed the ad on a billboard near the Alianza Martiana offices on Tuesday. By Wednesday afternoon it was gone because members of Vigilia Mambisa threatened to boycott the property owners where the billboard is located. The property owners, fearing a boycott from several other Cuban exile organizations called Clear Channel Outdoors and asked for the ad's removal. According to reports, the removal was negotiated just a few hours after the complaint. An official from Clear Channel responded publicly that "it was determined the material does not fit with our norms [of processing], and has been removed." The property owners fully supported the decision.

But, the billboard incident is just the tip of the iceberg. A review of how this story was reported in the media reveals how difficult it is in general to promote the cause of the Cuban Five, while the cause AGAINST the Cuban Five is constantly promoted.

Locally, none of the English-language news stations gave the billboard story any attention, which is typical. Local news in English concerning Cuba is far less frequent than in Spanish media, as if they avoid it. Univision23 and AmericaTeVe, on the other hand, kept audiences well updated on the "Billboard of Discord." But, neither one presented the cause of the Cuba Five, meaning they didn't even mention the main reasons why their supporters believe they should be free. In other words, there seems to be a deliberate attempt to silence the cause of the Cuban Five. But, in every report there was time given to speakers opposed to the Cuba Five, be it someone calling them assassins or convicted criminals. Not very balanced.

ENTER MAX LESNIK

Speaking on behalf of Alianza Martiana was Max Lesnik who was given time on both Univision23 and AmericaTeVe to explain why his organization placed the Cuban Five ad (and to respond to its removal), but not to elaborate on the cause to free the Cuba Five. On Wednesday, Lesnik appeared on AmericaTeVe's 8pm talk program "A Mano Limpia" to speak at length about the billboard incident. The program began with an interview with Miguel Saavedra, leader of Vigilia Mambisa, to explain how he negotiated the removal of the Cuban Five ad. Lesnik then appeared on the show alongside an opponent of the Cuban Five, but the discussion focused on the ad's offense to the community (because the Cuban Five are undoubtedly assassins), and soon framed as Miami-vs-Cuba (asking Lesnik to help place a billboard in Cuba favoring a cause by Cuban exiles). The details over the cause supporting the Cuban Five were ignored.

Max Lesnik then appeared Thursday on the radio on WQBA (1140AM) with Bernadette Pardo. In this interview, again Lesnick had to explain the reasons behind the ad, but within the first few minutes the interview took a predictable turn: the Cuban Five were compared to Osama bin Laden. Obviously, the discussion is framed as an issue of respect towards the community, and not about the cause of the Cuban Five. The details of the case were never discussed.

OTHER EXAMPLES

So, do the Cuban Five ever get a break? Not in Miami. Last September, several American actors and artists sent a letter to President Obama requesting a review of the case of the Cuban Five. Soon, the letter was also signed by non-American artists and actors, such as Colombian singer Juanes. The local Spanish media jumped at the chance to attack Juanes.

The letter campaign was ill-described as a "political campaign of the Cuban government" by AmericaTeVe reporter Juan Manuel Cao. The news reporting was an obvious attempt to cast doubt on Juanes' honest intentions concerning his Peace concert in Cuba the previous year, while reporter Gina Romero wonders why Juanes hasn't signed a letter in favor of Cuban political prisoners. (Not surprisingly Capitol Hill Cubans had the same concern.)

The AmericaTeVe program "A Mano Limpia" followed the same attack on Juanes with a full program, including Gina Romero and other opponents of the Cuban Five. And, never a mention of the details over the cause of the Cuban Five.

Finally, when Amnesty International (AI) came out in support of the Cuban Five with a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the same thing happened. Aside from the usual silence from the local media, America TeVe program "A Mano Limpia" came out ready to challenge the AI letter. Host Oscar Haza gathered three local attorneys to argue against the Cuban Five and the AI letter which Haza described as part of a "fierce international campaign" by the Cuban government.

FREE THE CUBAN FIVE

If any honest person takes the time to review the case of the Cuban Five, just like Amnesty International did, they may reach the conclusion that this MIGHT be a case of injustice. Or perhaps not. But, they should be given that chance to decide for themselves.

The cause of the Cuban Five has not been given fair treatment in Miami (or no treatment at all), and therefore people have not been given the opportunity to form an opinion over the case. In addition, some in Miami feel that even discussing the subject of the Cuban Five is an attack against the community. This is nothing but paranoia.

The case of the Cuban Five is a legitimate political cause that has been supported by many people internationally, and deserves to be defended. Even if you do not totally agree with it (like myself because I oppose espionage on principle), it does have the right to be heard. Especially in the media which is responsible for giving everyone with a cause a voice.

Media Sources Reviewed:
- Univision23 news reports
- America Teve news report 1 and 2
- Radio Mambi news report
- El Nuevo Herald report
- Cafe Fuerte report

Additional Resources supporting the Cuban Five:
- Amnesty International's "The Case of the Cuban Five" (October 2010)
- National Committee to Free the Cuban Five
- International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five
- Sting of the Wasp: The Cuban Five Connection

Los Van Van Return (Part 4)[Updated]

"Los Van Van rocks downtown Miami" is the headline of today's concert review by the Miami Herald. Jordan Levin writes:

"A scene of such enthusiastic unity between a Miami exile audience and the band that, for both Cuban music fans and critics of the island's government, embodies contemporary Cuba, would have seemed impossible even a few years ago."

El Nuevo Herald (Arturo Arias Polo) also writes a very positive review of last night's concert by Los Van Van. According to both stories, the audience number inside the James L. Knight center was around 3,500 to 4,000.

Outside the Knight center, protesters with their picket signs yelled at and insulted concertgoers. No violent incidents were reported. According to the Miami Herald, the protest crowd numbered 350 to 400. But, according to Spanish news agency EFE, the crowd size was more around 200. Even stranger, is the account by Manuel Prieres, author of the Villa Granadillo blog, who reported a crowd of 2000 (?) protesters.

In response to the concert, Alina Fernandez Revuelta, "unconfirmed" daughter and critic of Fidel Castro, writes in the Miami Herald the typical critique of Los Van Van: they represent the Cuban dictatorship. But, also goes further to describe last night's concertgoers as trained animals:

"The islanders are more than used to, indeed, trained to, move our waists with the Van Van, with their hijacked or explicit lyrics, their considerable if sometimes tiresome rhythm -- as tiresome as the propaganda that these musicians back."

A review of the local Spanish television news reports (Univision and Telemundo) showed positive coverage of the protest crowd (indicating that it was a success despite predicted low numbers), and negative coverage of the concert (indicating that the show failed to sell out the Knight center). Both Spanish reports neglected to give any approximations of either crowd size.

[Update: Radio Mambi (Univision Radio) news package before protest shows their cooperation with the protest organizers, and their coverage after shows their continued agenda to denigrate Los Van Van and their fans.]

[Photo by Miami Herald/C.W. Griffin]

Los Van Van Return (Part 3) [Updated]

This afternoon, local Spanish radio station "La Poderosa" (WWFE 670AM) was in close contact with Miguel Saavedra, leader of Vigilia Mambisa, by phone. In these last few days, WWFE, like Radio Mambi, has given plenty of air time to Saavedra and others planning to attended today's protest of Los Van Van in downtown Miami. Saavedra reported lots of excitement as people prepared the caravan leaving from Little Havana. Yesterday, Saavedra was invited on Radio Mambi's "Mesa Redonda" (with Armando Perez-Roura) for a full hour informing listeners about the several departure locations around Miami heading towards the James L. Knight center. As I write, the protest has already begun.

Lots of rumors and misinformation have spread since Los Van Van first appeared in Miami in 1999. All of them have been essentially used to defame and denigrate the Cuban band, who happen to be immensely popular in Cuba. But, to recognize their incredible success seems to be taboo in Miami.

PROVOCATION

Many detractors of Los Van Van accuse the band of "provocation" by their presence in Miami. This argument assumes that Los Van Van represent the Cuban government, and since the City of Miami inhabits many of the victims of the Cuban government, it would be an outrage to welcome them because it would "provoke" the trauma of Cuban exiles.

This argument falls apart simply because Los Van Van (the band) do not represent the Cuban government. If they did, then their lyrics (for example) would immediately resemble the appearances of Cuban government policy or ideology. But, once one reviews their lyrics, it becomes clear that Los Van Van talk about what most other songwriters talk about: love, relationships, the larger meanings of life, etc. Whatever personal political opinions any group members might have are absent.

Also, many Cuban exile militants misrepresent the popularity of Los Van Van by suggesting that only Cuban riff-raff listen to them. These remarks not only highlight the contempt that some Cubans have for other Cubans in Miami, but also tend to highlight the cultural differences between Cubans by their wave of arrival to the U.S. (such as those that listen to Timba, and those that refuse to).

Finally, one of the reasons Los Van Van eventually came to Miami in 1999 was because of their radio popularity noticed a couple years before, and not simply to provoke.

THE TEN MILLION TON SUGAR HARVEST

This is probably the next most mentioned allegation against Los Van Van: their name is in honor (or recognition) of a Cuban government program that pressured Cubans to cut sugar cane in 1970 with a propaganda campaign that went: "Y de que van, van. Los diez millones van!" (Those that go, go. The ten million must go!)

According to Juan Formell, leader and founder of Los Van Van: "Our name had nothing to do with that. It was just a coincidence, a phrase that was fashionable then. Nothing more. And there’s nothing else, no other story. 'Van van' in Spanish means it will happen, it will go."

The coincidence with their name and the sugar harvest program is unfortunate because it is an event that is recalled by some in exile as forced labor. But, Formell's explanation about the band name makes more sense because it is consistent with their many years of making apolitical music.

NEW LIES AND RUMORS

Cuban exile militants certainly don't rest went it comes to attacking their perceived enemies. One recent lie that spread recently about Los Van Van said that band leader Juan Formell signed a 2003 letter supporting the Cuban government crackdown of dissidents that year, and the execution of three males. This letter was never signed by Formell (as he declared in a television interview last year), but the lie was repeated many times this month by Ninoska Perez-Castellon on Radio Mambi (who corrected her error this past Friday), and by other militants such as Iliana Curra, an activist linked to the Cuban Liberty Council.

One recent rumor targets Juan Formell's son, who is also a member of Los Van Van. According to this allegation, Samuel Formell was convicted of a heinous crime back in the 1980s and received an 18-year sentence, but was soon set free after the intervention of the Cuban government.

The rumor originates from an article written by a Cuban dissident named Juan Gonzalez Febles. The article mentions many details, but strangely does not provide any dates, such as what year the crime occurred, or when Formell was supposedly released. The article has spread throughout the internet, among the usual anti-Castro blogs, to a mention in a recent El Nuevo Herald article, and to a post in the Miami New Times blog. According to Jorge Casuso of the Miami New Times, this alleged crime occurred in 1984 based on anonymous sources "who were closely and personally acquainted with Formell and the victim's family."

It should be noted that rumors usually begin by supposedly "close" acquaintances, especially in Miami.

[Update: CBS4 has first video of tonight's protest]
[Update2: Video of protest and concert from Zayramo]
[Update3: Some photos by El Nuevo Herald]

Los Van Van Return (Part 2)

Yesterday, Emilio Izquierdo Jr. appeared on Radio Mambi to inform listeners about the planned protest for Sunday (Jan. 31) at the James L. Knight Center. Cuba's "Rolling Stones of Salsa," Los Van Van, are scheduled to perform that evening as they had intended a decade ago. Host Ninoska Perez-Castellon made sure to write down all the important information for the protest against the band Izquierdo described as "the most representative" music group of the Cuban government.

According to Izquierdo, who describes himself as a spokesperson for UMAP News, there will be four locations throughout Miami that will be the departure points for caravans heading to the Knight Center, with some locations providing bus transportation. As expected, the Versailles Restaurant in Little Havana is among the departure locations. The protest at the Knight Center is expected to start around 5pm. Izquierdo suggests the theme of the protest be "GOD, DEMOCRACY, AND FREEDOM FOR CUBA." And, according to a letter published yesterday by Libre Magazine, Izquierdo also suggests...

"The Cuban exile community of Miami should hold Juan Formell [leader of Los Van Van] and his delinquents prisoner inside the James L. Knight [Center], like the Castro-Chavista accomplice Manuel Zelaya [found] himself inside the Brasilian embassy in Honduras."

If you're beginning to think that this protest is starting to sound like an act of repudiation, which is ironically an act condemned by the Cuban exile community when it targets dissidents inside Cuba, then prepare to be shocked. What is being planned for Sunday is, in my opinion, an act of repudiation, as it was in 1999.

REPETITION

In my previous post I described the actions of the City of Miami to stop the 1999 concert of Los Van Van. The city's discriminatory actions eventually ended when they had to pay over $90,000 in a lawsuit for violating the free speech rights of the concert promoter. What I didn't describe was the reasons behind the actions of the city officials.

When the Knight Center canceled the originally scheduled concert of Los Van Van in 1999, Cuban exile militancy had prevailed. And city officials shared their sentiments. "I am so relieved," said then-City Commissioner Joe Sanchez (loser of last year's mayoral contest). "The city does not need any more controversy," he declared. Then-commissioner Tomas Regalado (now Mayor of the City of Miami) believed the concert was "a challenge to the capital of the exile community," and then-Mayor Joe Carollo described Los Van Van as "the official Communist band of Fidel Castro."* Both Regalado and Carollo at the time made sure to let Miami know how they felt as they appeared on Spanish-language radio, such as Radio Mambi.

All the comments above have resurfaced within the Cuban exile community as the concert by Los Van Van approaches. From Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart calling the leader of Los Van Van the "musical ambassador" of the Cuban government, to Ninoska Perez-Castellon saying that the concert is a "provocation" and an attempt to "penetrate" the Cuban exile community. Encouraged by these leaders of the Cuban exile community, much more radical voices on the radio have also appeared calling Los Van Van "ratas" (rats) or "agents" of the Cuban government. Others have directed their insults towards the fans of Los Van Van calling them "chusma" or riff raff. It's the same kind of language used by Radio Mambi callers more than a decade ago.

REPUDIATION

When fans of Los Van Van arrived to the Miami Arena that evening of October 9, 1999, they faced a growing crowd of protesters. At its peak, police reported the crowd size around 4,000. Militant Cuban exile groups, like Unidad Cubana, Vigilia Mambisa and the F4 Comandos, were among the protesters. Days before the protest, Miguel Saavedra, leader of Vigilia Mambisa told the Miami Herald that he planned to videotape the concert attendees.

"Miguel Saavedra ... said his group would film those attending but would not publish the pictures. The videos would be kept until the collapse of the Castro government so the successor government could identify concertgoers who were Castro sympathizers."

Entering the Miami Arena to see Los Van Van, some fans met shouting protesters. Without provoking anyone, Mario Garcia was welcomed with a shout: "Communist, male prostitute, gigolo and whore." He was not bothered though, and responded: "I have as much right to listen to Los Van Van as they have to demonstrate." Unfortunately, others met with spitting or being the target of a thrown object. Joseph Adler, artistic director of GableStage at the Biltmore Hotel, while leaving the concert was attacked by rocks and eggs. After the concert was over, city riot police escorted concert attendees as they navigated back into the streets. [Video available here]

As the return concert approaches this Sunday, militant Cuban exiles are using desperate efforts to once again denigrate the members of Los Van Van. And, as expected, lies and rumors are spreading.


*[Miami Herald, September 11, 1999, "Concert canceled for Cuban dance band" by Tyler Bridges.]

[Raw footage of the Los Van Van protest from 1999, courtesy of Telemundo51]

[Photo: Protester at Miami Arena, October 9, 1999, courtesy of Villa Granadillo blog.]

Los Van Van Return (Part 1)

When Los Van Van, one of Cuba's most popular music groups, came to Miami in October of 1999 they met opposition from officials of the City of Miami and approximately 4,000 protesters who saw the music group as representatives of the Cuban government. A decade later, times have changed... a bit.

A recently published Miami Herald article concerning the return of Los Van Van for this Sunday forgot to mention the intense (and unlawful) opposition that promoters of the musical group faced from the City of Miami back in 1999. From the moment that city officials, like Miami Mayor Joe Carollo, discovered that Los Van Van had scheduled a performance in downtown Miami they took immediate actions to stop them. Debbie Ohanian, promoter of Los Van Van at the time, had already reached an agreement with the James L. Knight center for a September performance, but after the City of Miami intervened the venue imposed new regulations and the show was eventually canceled.

The Miami city attorney demanded Los Van Van to present additional documentation that no other city had ever requested, and the city also demanded Ohanian purchase "liability insurance to cover the venue's losses if disturbances on the night of the concert forced the Knight Center to cancel other events." One of those possible "disturbances" that the City of Miami had on their minds demanded Ohanian purchase "an additional two-million-dollar insurance policy so the city could rebuild the [James L. Knight] theater if it were blown up." This particular deal with the city was described by one the negotiatiors as "additional insurance over and above what [the City of Miami] would normally require of concert promoters."

These discriminatory measures were being imposed at the same time that Mayor Carollo was on Radio Mambi with Armando Perez-Roura expressing his opposition to the concert. As Radio Mambi callers insulted Los Van Van calling them "dogs" and "garbage," Mayor Carollo seemed undisturbed, even after a caller threatened to attack the Knight Center.

Negotiations with the City of Miami eventually broke down and Ohanian soon reached a deal that would allow Los Van Van to perform at the Miami Arena (demolished in 2008). The concert was scheduled for October 9, 1999, the same day that a Cuban exile organization would schedule a movie screening at the Knight Center, and after which they would provide shuttles to the Miami Arena for their planned protest of Los Van Van.

After the performance, the City of Miami mobilized about 50 police in riot gear to protect and escort the leaving audience from the estimated crowd of 4,000 protesters. Police grew concerned that night with some protesters who earlier threw objects at the concert-goers. Three city commissioners who observed the protest that night became upset at the show of force by the police department and vowed to not let Los Van Van (or any other Cuban music group) to perform in Miami again. One of those commissioners is now the mayor of the City of Miami (Tomas Regalado), and another was recently re-elected as a city commissioner (Willy Gort).

Willy Gort described the concert at the Miami Arena as something similar "to having a Nazi band play before Miami Beach's Jewish community." Immediately after the concert he promised to propose "a resolution to the City Commission that would force the promoter of a band who draws a massive crowd to pay for all police and other expenses instead of sending the bill to taxpayers."

Ohanian was forced to pay the City of Miami over $36,000 for security costs for the night of the concert. She sued the city the following year, and in 2004 won her lawsuit. The City of Miami had to pay back over $90,000. The judge described the discriminatory actions of the Mayor and commissioners as having "a chilling effect" on the rights of free speech.

But, with the scheduled return of Los Van Van on Sunday, it seems that the city has learned its lesson. There are no reports of opposition from the city. Unfortunately, some of the same local organizations that protested in 1999 have not changed much.

"A Dangerous President"

Those were the exact words that Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen used to describe President Barack Obama when she appear on Radio Mambi last month.

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen occasionally appears on Radio Mambi to provide updates for listeners on her activities. She represents Florida's 18th Congressional District, which includes parts that most people recognize as "Miami," such as Coral Gables, Downtown Miami, Key Biscayne, Brickell and Miami Beach.

On November 13th, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen appeared on "La Mesa Redonda" (The Roundtable) with Armando Perez-Roura, programming director of Radio Mambi. I believe other issues were discussed, but the main issue seemed to be the decision that day by the U.S. Justice Department to federally prosecute five men accused of conspiring in the attacks of September 11. Rep. Ros-Lehtinen was outraged, as were many in the Republican party that day.

But, near the end of the radio show, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen summed it up for listeners. She not only felt that the decision from the Obama administration was misguided, and that the decision put U.S. security at risk (as other Republicans asserted), but she also felt that we had "a dangerous President" in the White House.

So I wonder what kind of decision a Radio Mambi listener might come to after that interview.

Here's an indication. Yesterday it was reported by El Nuevo Herald (Wilfredo Cancio Isla) that the U.S. Secret Service is investigating a call to Radio Mambi of someone who made an on-air threat to Pres. Obama saying someone should "shoot him in the head."

Now, some of you might think that maybe this was just some crazy person who called in one day, and said something stupid. Not likely. The Herald reports that the voice was from a regular caller to Radio Mambi (which is the case with most callers to Radio Mambi), and quotes an anonymous employee at the radio station saying that "what is heard there [on Radio Mambi] everyday against Obama and against any other is outrageous."

There is also a larger context here. Ever since Barack Obama became President, Radio Mambi has reached a new level of radicalism that I had never heard before. I will try to post about that soon, and with some audio samples.


[Another thing. The Herald article by Wilfredo Cancio Isla is not easily accessible to regular users of The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald websites. Doing a search for the article is useless. It doesn't even appear on Google News. Wierd.]

[Background on the recent decision by the U.S. Justice Department to prosecute 9-11 conspirators.]

[Photo by Getty Images]

Credibility You Say?

Not much time to post nowadays. But, here goes. Also, thanks to all those who share their comments. I will try to respond to all, and attempt to interact more with readers since I will be posting less.

Now where was I? Oh, yes. So, there was a new poll taken concerning last month's Peace without Borders concert in Cuba [PDF]. According to the new numbers, the majority of Cuban-Americans interviewed (53%) had a favorable opinion of the concert (a stark change from a previous poll showing a majority opposed to the planned concert [PDF]). I had commented elsewhere that perhaps Cubans in Miami had changed their minds about the concert after it aired live on several local channels in Miami. Indications in the local media proved accurate.

What I found most interesting in the new poll (conducted by the Cuba Study Group and Bendixen and Associates), aside from the significant change in general opinion about the concert, was the data from the 50 and over category.

According to the new poll, Cuban-Americans over 49 years old were the largest group who watched the concert, and also the group that most changed their minds about the concert (about 10% more than younger Cubans). And, the most popular response given for the favorable views about the concert was: it "uplifted Cuban people" (51%).

So how did hard-liners in the media respond? As usual, they totally dismissed the poll. Aside from the fact that Radio Mambi generally ignores all facts that conflict with their propaganda goals, they sometimes have some reasons behind their behavior.

1) Radio Mambi hosts have concluded that the Peace without Borders concert was a secretly planned effort by the Obama administration to normalize relations with Cuba. Therefore, it should be viewed as a failed attempt at doing so, and condemned for trying. The new poll is merely another part of the conspiracy to normalize relations.

2) The new poll was conducted by Bendixen and Associates, a polling firm that has no credibility according to the hosts of Radio Mambi. Earlier this week, host Ninoska Perez-Castellon [photo above] cited two reasons: Bendixen polling was inaccurate in one Nicaraguan election, and inaccurate in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election.

She's correct in one example, but lying in the other.

According to Perez-Castellon, Bendixen polling totally missed the mark in 1990 (that's right, almost 20 years ago!) when it predicted an election victory for Daniel Ortega over Violeta Chamorro by 53% to 35%. Chamorro instead won with 55%.

What Perez-Castellon doesn't say is that Bendixen polling, by 1990, had several accurate predictions throughout Latin America. Also, Bendixen was not alone in its flawed data concerning Nicaragua, several other surveys had Ortega as the winner over Chamorro, with only a few polls reporting accurately.* Here's an explanation of what really happened.

Next, Perez-Castellon says that Bendixen polling predicted that John Kerry would win over George W. Bush in the 2004 elections. That's a lie. A review of Florida newspaper articles (via Newsbank) during the 2004 campaign shows that Bendixen polling never predicted a Kerry win (nationally or in Florida), but instead consistently revealed important data about hispanic and Cuban voting [article "Cuban Americans Split on Kerry"]. While Bendixen and Associates worked diligently with Democrats, providing information about changing attitudes within hispanic and Cuban voters, it never predicted a victory for John Kerry.

The only one whose credibility is suspect is Radio Mambi's.

*[Feb. 27, 1990, The Miami Herald, "For Pollsters, Upset Carries a Bitter Sting" by Tom Fiedler.]

Saavedra the Scapegoat

Next month's planned performance in Cuba by the Colombian artist "Juanes" has definitely stirred people up, mainly in Miami. I've been keeping a close eye on events so far and things are beginning to get ugly. I'll write more about my thoughts on the upcoming Juanes concert in Cuba, but right now I wanted to post on something related.

Yesterday, Miguel Saavedra [above] appeared on Maria Elvira Live! (video available here), a local Spanish-language television program that focuses on politics. Saavedra was essentially invited on the program to be questioned about his most recent protest against the upcoming Juanes concert. Saavedra is the leader of the local organization called Vigilia Mambisa, a group that regularly organizes protests and demonstrations in opposition to the Cuban government. I've written many times before on the activities by Vigilia Mambisa and readers can view those posts here.

Again, it seems that Vigilia Mambisa caught everyone's attention last Friday when they began to publicly destroy music CDs by Juanes, and then burn a black t-shirt (symbolic of one of Juanes' songs) in a protest near the Versailles Restaurant. A local Spanish-language station (America TeVe) broadcasted the protest live (video available here), in another attempt to give Vigilia Mambisa maximum exposure. In the television report, Saavedra says that Vigilia Mambisa is asking all Cuban artists to denounce Juanes because "the ones that do not make a statement (against Juanes), become accomplices to Juanes."

But, yesterday's interview with Saavedra on Maria Elvira Live! revealed that some Cuban exiles are not happy with the image of Friday's protest. Maria Elvira read a statement by Radio Mambi's Ninoska Perez-Castellon saying that the protest did "a bad turn to the exile community by transmitting an erroneous image" of them. Maria Elvira also defended this argument strongly against Saavedra suggesting that burning objects, such as music, was reminiscent of actions by Nazis and Communists. In response, Saavedra said that people at the protest had the right to destroy those objects because they were the rightful owners and therefore could do as they wish.

Well, this morning those differences really came face to face, when Saavedra called into Radio Mambi and defended the Vigilia Mambisa protest after one of the radio hosts (Enrique Encinosa) described the actions as "Communist," "Fascist" and "Nazi-like." These statements angered members of Vigilia Mambisa who later called into competing radio station "La Poderosa" (WWFE 670AM) defending Saavedra, and condemning Encinosa's comments. One other blog that reports on the activities of Vigilia Mambisa has already posted about this morning's confrontation.

But, what is odd about all this is the focus on Miguel Saavedra. Saavedra is an extremist due to the hard-line and intolerant values transmitted regularly throughout the exile community, namely by people like Maria Elvira, Ninoska Perez-Castellon and Radio Mambi's programming director Armando Perez-Roura. Why target Saavedra when it is Perez-Roura who repeatedly quotes Jose Marti saying:

"When freedom is not enjoyed [by all], Art's only excuse, and it's only right to exist, is to serve [freedom]. Everything into the fire, even Art, to feed the bonfire [of freedom]!"

Also, it's radio personalities like Encinosa (who defends acts of terrorism) and Perez-Castellon (who prefers acts of violence to overthrow the Cuban government) that preach intolerance almost daily.

In this case, Saavedra is made the scapegoat because if you blame Cuban exile leaders like Perez-Roura and Perez-Castellon for promoting extremism, then you pay a hefty price in Miami. Radio Mambi, for example, provides an important platform for a large network of local exile leaders, political leaders and business leaders. If you blame Saavedra, then what's the worst that can happen?

But, the oddest thing of all is that Miguel Saavedra is now criticized for giving exiles a bad image for publicly destroying CDs on Calle Ocho, BUT when he physically attacked another person on Calle Ocho two years ago, during another public protest, there was barely any criticism from Cuban exiles in the local Spanish media.

The propaganda objectives of the local Spanish-language media is another post for the near future.

Polls Schmolls

Yesterday on Radio Mambi, Ninoska Perez Castellon responded to an article in El Nuevo Herald reporting on the introduction of the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act. The bill was introduced last week by Rep. William Delhunt [D-MA] and co-sponsored by Democrats and Republicans. In sum, the bill "prohibits the U.S. president from regulating or prohibiting travel to or from Cuba by U.S. residents, except in times of war between the two countries or of imminent danger to public health or the safety of U.S. travelers."

Phil Peters, Cuba expert from the Lexington Insitute, has hopes for the bill: "I think the conditions are good for it... The veto threat is gone and Obama has signaled that he is interested in revamping policy. I am not making any predictions, but is it a bill that gets introduced every year and has no chance? No."

Perez Castellon was outraged and described Rep. Delahunt as "anti-American" and "an apologist for the [Cuban] dictatorship." But, it seems that Perez Castellon was even more outraged with the local polling data showing support for Rep. Delahunt's bill. Perez-Castellon cannot accept that fact and has gone into denial.

The El Nuevo Herald article that Perez Castellon was referring to yesterday had an online poll attached to it. Perez Castellon could not believe the results. "Obviously they are not even scientific and lord knows who or how they are being manipulated," said Perez Castellon about the poll. She then began to insinuate a larger conspiracy:

"... in this poll that mysteriously is 75 percent in favor [for American travel]. That if you told me this happened in Arkansas, well OK it was in Arkansas, or in New York or in Boston, who are very liberal... no, no in Miami, right in the heart of the exile community. These are the results because this is consistent with the thesis that the exile community has changed. If the exile community has changed then the three [Cuban-American] members of congress would not have been re-elected." [MP3]

Later in the evening, Telemundo51 covered the same story on the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act. They also asked their viewer to participate in an online poll. They asked: Are you in favor of easing travel to Cuba for Americans? From approximately 1500 votes, 82 percent(!) were in favor. The El Nuevo Herald poll had over 2800 votes.

These online results in fact support the scientific polling data presented by the 2008 Cuba/US Transition Poll, conducted by the Institute of Public Opinion Research at Florida International University and supported by the Brookings Institution and the Cuba Study Group. The poll questioned 800 Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County, with a 3.6% margin of error.

In that Transition Poll, concerning the question of unrestricted travel to Cuba by Americans, respondents age 18 to 44 favored unrestricted American travel by 75 percent. Respondents who left Cuba from 1980 to 1998 favored the idea by 67 percent, while those who left Cuba after 1998 were in favor by 80 percent.

People who favor unrestricted travel to Cuba sometimes call Radio Mambi. Of course, their comments are immediately denounced and their person insulted. Perez Castellon calls them "stupid" on the air, while loyal callers are allowed to call them "ratas" or rats. [MP3]

Ninoska Perez Castellon does not accept any reliable polling data such as the Transition Poll, which she called "bogus" when it first came out. Nor did she believe a more extensive version when it came out in 2007. But, of course, she supported the results of a recent poll that contradicted the Transition Poll. This one headed by a loyal Republican firm, and called a "joke" by Phil Peters.

I doubt anything would convince Ninoska Perez Castellon, or any Cuban exile militant, that opinions on US policy towards Cuba are drastically changing in Miami. It's called denial.

[Photo by Jeff Chiu/AP, McCain supporters from 2008]

Militants Behind Chris Simmons

Last night, Henry Gomez of the Babalu blog posted a statement from Omar Ortega, attorney from Dorta & Ortega P.A.. The statement alleges that Dorta & Ortega will represent Chris Simmons in a defamation lawsuit filed against him on Thursday.

Earlier this year, Chris Simmons publicly accused several individuals in Miami of being "agents of influence" or former spies for the Cuban government. He appeared on local Spanish-language radio and television. Silvia Wilhelm was among the accused and has now sued Simmons for defamation, seeking damages in excess of $75,000. Wilhelm has retained the legal services of Bruce Rogow, law professor at Nova Southeastern University.

Rogow has a very impressive record in law, which contrasts starkly with the short history of Dorta & Ortega. And, one certainly must wonder why Simmons has chosen (or has been appointed) these services. But, if one looks carefully, behind Chris Simmons and Dorta & Ortega stand some of the most militant Cuban exiles of Miami.

Rey Dorta and Omar Ortega serve under the law firm of Marcell Felipe. Marcell Felipe is not only a recent donor to the US-Cuba Democracy PAC (a long time advocate of the US embargo), but he also belongs to the board of directors of the Cuban Liberty Council (CLC). In fact, as early as September, Felipe was voted Executive Director of the CLC.

The CLC recently criticized Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias after he commented that a democratic transition in Cuba would "hopefully come with the least amount of intervention from Washington and the Cubans in Miami because, otherwise, it will become more complicated."

The CLC responded with a letter that misinterpreted Arias' comment as "exclusion," which was not the case. The letter was signed by Marcell Felipe, Executive Director, and Ninoska Perez Castellon, member of the CLC Executive Committee.

Ninoska Perez Castellon is a militant Cuban exile that believes a violent overthrow of the Cuban government is justified, and also invited Chris Simmons repeatedly on her television AND radio show where Simmons made all his controversial accusations.

It seems that those now defending Simmons are the the same ones who benefited from his accusations. What a surprise.

[Photo above of members of the Cuban Liberty Council]

[OK, now I take a break.]

Chris Simmons Goes to Court [Updated]

He was asking for it, so he got it. Frances Robles of the Miami Herald is reporting that Chris Simmons, the so-called "spyhunter," is being sued in Miami.

"[Silvia] Wilhelm, executive director of Puentes Cubanos and the Cuban American Commission for Family Rights, filed a defamation suit against Simmons seeking more than $75,000."

We'll see how things turn out. If Simmons loses, he could face other lawsuits. Robles quotes another person who was allegedly defamed by Simmons:

"I'm glad Silvia is doing this,'' said FIU Professor Lisandro Pérez, who said he is considering also filing suit against Simmons for calling him a spy. "Suing for defamation is an onerous process and would take a great deal of money and time. You have to prove you are not a spy."

[Excellent analysis on Chris Simmons' accusations over at the Cuban Triangle blog by Phil Peters.]

[Photo by C.M. Guerrero]

[Update: Alejandro Armengol, writer for El Nuevo Herald, has posted the official complaint on his blog, Cuaderno de Cuba. And, according to Wilfredo Cancio Isla of El Nuevo Herald, there are two other persons, presently unnamed, also considering taking legal action against Simmons.]

[Update: Henry Gomez of the Babalu blog has posted a statement from the law firm that will allegedly represent Chris Simmons in court, Dorta & Ortega, P.A.:

"By bringing this lawsuit Ms. Wilhelm has not only given a greater forum for Mr. Simmons to discuss the facts which lead to Mr. Simmons’ statements but more importantly opened Ms. Wilhelm to direct questioning by Mr. Simmons representatives concerning all the allegations which she claims to be false."]

Freedom for Arocena

Last week, when Pres. Bush released his list of pardons and commutations, some Cuban exile militants were upset to see that Eduardo Arocena [photo] was not on that list. On Spanish-language radio, some expressed their hope that Arocena would be pardoned by the Thanksgiving holiday, but now some are worried that Arocena might spend the rest of his life behind bars.

It was Friday afternoon, July 22, 1983, when FBI agents arrested Eduardo Arocena on suspicion that he was the leader of a terrorist organization called Omega-7. More than a year later he was found guilty and given a life sentence for several serious charges, including murder. Before being sentenced, Arocena told to the judge:

"[The US government] knows that I am an anti-communist till death and will continue to be until the last days of my existence. More than anything, I shall continue fighting for the liberation of my homeland until the final days of my life. And they won't, nor anyone will, prevent me from continuing to do so...

"[The US government] says I am a terrorist. If fighting for my country, and sacrificing everything the way I have, is to be a terrorist, then I am a terrorist...

"I regret nothing. Your honor, do your duty, for I have done mine."

This past July marked 25 years since the arrest of Eduardo Arocena, and Cuban militants in Miami believe that he has paid for his crimes and should be released. But, since July, several different arguments have been given to release Arocena from federal prison.

First, it should be noted that the Campaign to Free Eduardo Arocena is NOT seeking a Presidential pardon for Arocena (despite its repeated uses of the word "pardon"), but rather a commutation of his sentence. This is the wording of the official letter that was sent to the Office of the Pardon Attorney.

The use of the word "pardon" (in Spanish "perdon" or "indulto") serves as propaganda for Cuban exile militants to send the message to the public that Arocena's past actions should be officially vindicated by the US government. This is the real motivation behind the campaign, regardless of the hidden fact that Arocena does not qualify for a Presidential pardon.

"Humanitarian reasons" have been argued in asking for a "pardon." But, concerns that Arocena's "health is failing" runs contrary to a 2007 Department of Justice report that says he is in good physical and mental health. Even if his health is truly of concern, it is not mentioned in the official letter to the US Pardon Attorney, nor on the official online petition. And, neither does his wife, Miriam, mention Arocena's failing health in a recent interview with the Miami Herald.

Miriam Arocena has appeared repeatedly on Radio Mambi to speak out for the release of her husband. Her main argument is that Eduardo is imprisoned in the state of Indiana, which is too far from his family in Miami. She has stated that it is very expensive for the family to go visit her husband, and that in the past 25 years she has only seen him 8 times. While this is a reasonable argument to relocate Arocena closer to Miami, I doubt it is sufficient to grant someone a "pardon."

Nevertheless, a commutation of Eduardo Arocena's life sentence is possible in the sole hands of the President. As P.S. Ruckman Jr., expert on executive clemencies, has noted, "[t]here are no rules" when it comes to the power of the President to grant clemency. Arocena can be freed by Christmas if Pres. Bush so decides.

Still, as this administration comes to an end, some militants are growing concerned. Immediately after the release of last week's pardon and commutation list, writers at the militant blog Nuevo Accion wrote:

"Everything indicates that [Pres.] Bush with give one last slap in the face to [us] free Cubans before leaving the White House."

On a more positive note, the Campaign to Free Eduardo Arocena, who is boasting of having sent 60,000 petition letters to the President, also published a response showing confidence that Arocena will receive his "gift" by Christmas:

"We are certain that this will happen, since in his [the President's] hands is the way to reciprocate this community who worked so hard and diligently to make him President on two occasions, and who arduously supported [Senator] McCain until the end. It's time that he reward us with that Christmas gift [for Eduardo Arocena]."

It's shameful to see how some people can easily debase the special powers of the Executive as simple quid pro quo.

Anyway, it should be clear to most readers that Cuban exile militants see Eduardo Arocena as the "patriotic ideal." His "pardon" or release by the President would be exploited by militants in Miami to officially vindicate their belief in violence as a legitimate method in their cause to free Cuba. This would be a harmful message for South Florida, or for any civil society.

While I personally believe that Eduardo Arocena has spent sufficient time in prison, the decision to release him should not come from the sole discretion of the President, but rather from honest "humanitarian reasons." Arocena's release from prison should be part of a larger human rights campaign to address the unfair conditions of the more than 100,000 persons serving life sentences in US jails and prisons, and more than 30,000 of those serving life without parole. [Read 2004 Report, PDF]

This is the humanitarian cause that Arocena's freedom should belong to, and not the militant propaganda that serves to "confront international communism." If Arocena is soon freed, he should be forced to renounce violence publicly. Otherwise, Miami's civil society (whatever remains of it) will suffer an unneccessary setback.

[A recent and excellent article on Eduardo Arocena by Tim Elfrink for the Miami New Times.]

[El Nuevo Herald online poll showing 59% of readers opposed to the release of Eduardo Arocena from prison.]

[Miami Herald editorial from 1985 concerning the imprisonment of Eduardo Arocena.]

Miami Madness

What a week. Plenty to write about and so little time.

ON THE FRONTLINE

Carlos Miller, photo and video journalists, finally uploaded footage from last Saturday's Code Pink demonstration at the Versailles Restaurant. According to Miller, he was assaulted by a Versailles Restaurant "bodyguard" after he stepped over into the pro-Luis Posada Carriles side of Calle Ocho, where militant Cuban exiles have little tolerance for dissenting views, and was being forced to leave by a shouting crowd. Miami police intervened in the altercation and asked if Miller wished to press charges on the "bodyguard" who assaulted him. Miller declined to press charges citing that he nor his equipment were harmed in the quarrel.

Nevertheless, in his blog, Miller describes his anger over the treatment he received by some at the protest in front of the Versailles Restaurant. He also adds some expletives aimed at Aldo Rosado-Tuero, director of the Nuevo Accion blog, who is accused by Miller for lying about the incident on Saturday. Nuevo Accion is a Spanish-language blog not too different from the Babalu Blog, but far more motivated by tabloid tendencies, intimidation tactics, public defamation and manipulation. (Or is that the same as Babalu Blog?)

[Check out the other videos by Carlos Miller and Magic City Media]


GUEVARAGATE?

In another attempt to obviate from the important issues, Henry Gomez from the Babalu Blog has led a misinformation campaign against Presidential candidate Barack Obama and his supporters by focusing on the controversial figure of Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

For decades, the Guevara image (and rhetoric) has been generally understood as a force of benevolent revolution, but recent publications, some of which have gained national attention, have strengthened the debate over the "Che" image, and the real man. But, this new debate has yet to take hold over every person in America, and it is unreasonable (and unrealistic) for Henry Gomez to think that this issue of "Guevaragate" should be forced among the most pressing national issues.

But, important national issues don't seem to matter to Mr. Gomez. He's more concerned about creating conflict among Americans who are still ignorant of the new debate over Guevara. At the very least, Mr. Gomez has the opportunity to expand an important and serious debate over the controversial life of Ernesto "Che" Guevara. (Notice that debate is virtually banned from the Babalu Blog.) Instead, Mr. Gomez's plan is to now stereotype American citizens supporting Barack Obama as being "Che admirers."

According to Mr. Gomez, "the percentage of people who support [Barack Obama] who have subscribed to those Che myths is substantial" and "there are a significant number of Che admirers supporting [Barack Obama]."

What's the proof, you say? According to Mr. Gomez: "14 user generated web pages at BarackObama.com [feature] quotes or pictures from Che Guevara." Case closed.

Here's what Mr. Gomez leaves out: 1) most of those 14 profiles have legitimate concerns about top national issues such as healthcare, the Iraq War and energy independence; and 2) there are over 100,000 profiles at BarackObama.com.

But, those facts do not matter to Mr. Gomez. He's more concerned about something else: the ideological battle against the Cuban government.