The Continued Defamation of the Bolivarian Youth (Part 2)

What was Ivan Taylor trying to say?

But, to go further, is Ivan Taylor from Telemundo51 saying that the Bolivarian Youth provoked the attack on January 19th? Clearly, from his story it seems that way. If you compare Taylor's story with others who are saying that the Bolivarian Youth are agitators, they are very similar.

The Babalu Blog yesterday presented a link to the Nuevo Accion (New Action[?]) website, where they repeat that the Bolivarian Youth are "professional agitators." This refers to an "exclusive" by Nuevo Accion by their "investigation department" presenting photos of the Bolivarian Youth with "pruebas graficas" (picture/photo evidence) of their PROFESSIONAL practice "para agitar y sembrar la subversión y el odio"(to agitate and sow subversion and hate). Notice that all of this is based on photos.

What is odd is that the photos by Nuevo Accion are not hard to come by, and no one needs an "investigation department" to find them. The Bolivarian Youth presents plenty of photos of themselves (even the SAME ONES found by Nuevo Accion's "investigation department") on their official website. And the pictures are better quality too! Furthermore, Nuevo Accion calls this "exclusive" as the "desenmascaramiento"(unmasking) of the Bolivarian Youth. Everything that follows the pictures is pure libel and defamation by Nuevo Accion, calling members of the Bolivarian Youth paid agents of other nations, and calling their attorney, Jack Lieberman, a "terrorista verbal"(verbal terrorist). So much for freedom of expression.

All these allegations are based on pictures that are already public, and which show peaceful protests.

Nevertheless, Nuevo Accion today presents Part Two of their "exclusive" on the "professional agitators", and makes calls to report these "subversions" to the federal authorities. (I guess you're supposed to make printouts of these photos and show them to the FBI because they don't have computers.)

Anyway, Ivan Taylor's story for Telemundo51 is not too far from this absurdity. He includes video ("picture evidence") of members of the Bolivarian Youth demonstrating, and engaging with opposing demonstrators at the Orange Bowl , which has NOTHING to do with the attack from Vigilia Mambisa on January 19th on Calle Ocho. Then, Ivan Taylor shows Michael Martinez, member of the Bolivarian Youth, shouting in support of Hugo Chavez, which also has NOTHING to do with the attack on the 19th, but only serves Vigilia Mambisa, Nuevo Accion, and others to defame and discriminate members of the Bolivarian Youth for their politics.

I think Ivan Taylor and Telemundo51 engaged in discrimination. Deliberate or not, its a cause for concern and such reporting should be unacceptable.

[Part 1]

The Continued Defamation of the Bolivarian Youth (part 1)

Ever since the video from January 19th, where members of the Bolivarian Youth are seen being attacked by members of Vigilia Mambisa, many have come out to defend the violent actions of Vigilia Mambisa and its president Miguel Saavedra.

The defamation and slander of the Bolivarian Youth is a typical strategy of discrimination and desperation, but what is fascinating is how even the local media, instead of regular hard-liners, engage in such behavior with little problem.

When Ivan Taylor from Telemundo51, local Spanish-language news, reported on the Bolivarian Youth formally pressing charges at the City of Miami police department (Jan. 23), not only did he present irrelevant issues that would not hinder the investigation of the charges, but sought to stereotype one of the members of the Bolivarian Youth. Ivan Taylor's story ends with video footage of Michael Martinez, from the Bolivarian Youth, at another counter-demonstration where opposing protesters are both engaged in shouting insults and almost physical violence. This took place last year at the Orange Bowl, during elections for the Venezuelan presidency. The video ends with Martinez yelling into the camera: "Viva [Hugo] Chavez!"

I can't say that Ivan Taylor was deliberately trying to defame Martinez, but without question Taylor sought to provide a false image of Martinez. Why didn't Ivan Taylor interview Martinez himself, like the Miami Herald's Casey Woods did? Or attempt to follow up? Why give an impression of an individual from ONE video of a protest that got ugly? I'm sure there's plenty of video of the Bolivarian Youth peacefully protesting at other places because they are very active. And, does it matter that Martinez supports Hugo Chavez?

[Part 2]

The Two Faces of Carlos Alberto Montaner (Part 3)

At the 2003 National Summit on Cuba, William Ratliff said: "Some embargo supporters say lifting the embargo now would reward Castro for his stubbornness, even for his recent repression. No. A bad policy is a bad policy and should be changed." The fact that the embargo is near the half-century mark is a good indicator of its failure, even so at fifteen years since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Also in 2003, a senior fellow from the Hoover Institution, Larry Diamond, commented on the US embargo towards Cuba and said that "[w]e have tried this strategy for 40 years in Cuba, and all it has done is impoverish the people and entrench their repressive rulers. Precisely in order to generate the social and economic changes that will finally undermine communist rule in Cuba, we should lift the embargo and promote as much exchange and interaction with that country as possible."

This is the basic position of the MAJORITY of libertarians.

So, why does Montaner differ with them, and Milton Friedman (the "true revolutionary"), when it comes to US policy towards Cuba when, according to the most basic principles of free markets, the government should not force itself upon free trade. Even in Montaner's own words, "the freest way to vote may be precisely with money." Then why doesn't he let American's vote with their wallets when it comes to Cuba?

Is Carlos Alberto Montaner really a friend of freedom?

Maybe not.

[Part 1]

The Two Faces of Carlos Alberto Montaner (Part 2)

First, it should be made clear that the MAJORITY of libertarians, of which Friedman was a champion, DISAGREE with the US embargo towards Cuba. You can go to any website of the major libertarian organizations and do a search on "cuba embargo," and find an article that condemns the almost-half-century policy.

Milton Friedman, according to his biography, "was a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution from 1977 to 2006"(until he died). The Hoover Institution is vehemently against the US embargo towards Cuba. They have written several reports about the long-standing US policy. Do a "cuba embargo" search on their website and see for yourself.

Even outside of the Hoover Institution, Milton Friedman was a member of the advisory council for the group "Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba," which opposed and continues to oppose many other restrictions that US policy places on Americans concerning links to Cuba.

Montaner, on the other hand, is totally supportive of the US embargo. In 2003, Montaner wrote a piece titled "Keep U.S. embargo on Cuba" (October 2). Just like his Friedman piece, this article is also reactionary. Montaner writes as a rebuttal to the 2003 National Summit on Cuba, which took place in Miami that year. Montaner writes that the Summit included "strategists certain that fluid relations between Washington and Havana will accelerate the end of communism." It just so happens that some of these "strategists" were libertarians. One was even from Friedman's own Hoover Institution, William Ratliff, a research fellow for the Latin region. In his article, Montaner clarifies his support for the embargo with the argument that "every time Castro strengthens his power, he invests those resources to retract the few morsels of economic freedom granted to the people during the periods of deep crisis". But he gives no examples in his article.

[Part 3]

The Two Faces of Carlos Alberto Montaner (Part 1)

Last November, the Miami Herald printed an op-ed by Carlos Alberto Montaner. The piece was about the recent passing of the famous economist Milton Friedman. Montaner called Friedman "the true revolutionary," an obvious reactionary statement to those who Montaner believes are "[t]he enemies of freedom... The social engineers. The collectivists who are lovers of humanity but adversaries of individuality... Those arrogant clods who are full of certitude" and tell you how you should live your life.

Without question, Montaner had a group in mind when writing that part. But, who really is the enemy of freedom? Or, rather, who is really a defender of it?

I was surprised by Montaner's piece because, unlike Montaner, Milton Friedman, the exalted libertarian, had a very different approach to Cuba, a nation that Montaner highlights often.
(Notice that Montaner began his Friedman eulogy with an example from Cuba.)

Let's make it clear. Milton Friedman, the "true revolutionary," did not share Montaner's views on Cuba, specifically the US embargo towards Cuba (approaching the fifty year mark). No doubt, these two would agree that socialism has brought despair and destruction to the Caribbean island, but they did not agree on how "freedom" would/should come to Cuba.

So, if Milton was the "true revolutionary," then why would Montaner disagree with him on this issue?

Let's review their positions.

[Part 2]

Into the Fires of Mambi

Will Miguel Saavedra become a sacrificial lamb to save the image of hard-line exiles?

This morning, on her Radio Mambi show, Lourdes D'Kendall (real last name is Bertot) made some interesting comments about what happened between the Bolivarian Youth and Vigilia Mambisa. The issue came up when a caller tried to justify the attack on the Bolivarian Youth, but D'Kendall made it clear that while she feels the Bolivarian Youth was guilty of provocation, she still insisted that all citizens are protected by the US Constitution to protest publicly. Furthermore, D'Kendall became more outraged as the topic got rolling and described those who attacked the Bolivarian Youth as "chusma" (riff-raff).

D'Kendall made it clear that she was opposed to the actions of that day, but also said that she didn't know the details of the whole story, such as if Saavedra was provoked or not. I find her ignorance on the story suspicious because other programs on Radio Mambi, such as the one right before hers, have commented about it and the station has received many calls about it too. Also, for her to be uninformed is strange because her show is all about local happenings.

But, its possible. She may be deliberately dismissing the whole story, and waiting for the heat to settle. But, today she not only called those who attacked the Bolivarian Youth as "chusma" but also was upset at how the Cuban-American community "se deja dominar por esa chusma" (allows itself to be dominated by that riff-raff). And, just when I thought she was through, she states that riff-raff like that "se han infiltrado aqui" (have been infiltrated here). Wow. Yet, she doesn't know the details.

I'm thinking that Lourdes D'Kendall is preparing her listeners (and some in the Cuban-American community) for an eventual abandonment of members of Vigila Mambisa. The tragedy here is that Vigilia Mambisa has been a huge supporter of D'Kendall's public campaigns, such as supporting the book ban on "Vamos a Cuba" and a recall of Rudy Crew, superintendent of the Miami-Dade school board. Yet, given D'Kendall's arrogance and bigotry, she may not care at all about Saavedra and making him a convenient scapegoat.

I find it tragic though. Saavedra and Vigilia Mambisa worked so hard for the book ban and other causes at the school board, which Lourdes D'Kendall favors wholeheartedly, to be dumped by so-called friends. Its unlikely that D'Kendall is totally ignorant of what happened at the Jan. 19th demonstration, when in fact Saavedra and his group are very involved in local politics and have called D'Kendall's show before.

One time, I actually called during D'Kendall's show to comment. This was on the day after the school board voted to ban "Vamos a Cuba". Other callers were rejoicing at the decision because D'Kendall had dedicated plenty of time in support of the ban. I called in and, when I finally got picked, mentioned that WSVN7 local news had an online poll last night where 60% voted in disapproval for the ban.

D'Kendall went defensive and said that those who voted online were "misinformed". I asked "what do you mean misinformed?" She ignored the question and said that the real vote shall come in future elections for the school board members.

Lourdes D'Kendall, if you listen to her many commentaries, has little respect for the public. She supports elections, but if you vote wrong, then you are "misinformed". In her world there are many dumb people.

Her bigotry may be the hand that pushes Saavedra into the volcano.

Bolivarian Youth Press Charges

If someone got in your face and said "maricón" and then hit you, would you press charges?

Radio Mambi, in the afternoon, reported that the Bolivarian Youth was holding a protest at the City of Miami Police Department. This was not the case. They, and many other supporters, marched to the police department to file formal charges against members of Vigilia Mambisa. [Video available here, courtesy of CBS4 News.]

This evening, both Telemundo51 and Noticias23 (Univision) report that members of the Bolivarian Youth formally pressed charges for being attacked on Jan. 19th, at a pro-Luis Posada Carriles demonstration.

Miguel Saavedra, of Vigilia Mambisa, insists that he and his members were provoked by the Bolivarian Youth, and laments about what happened. Saavedra also insists that the Bolivarian Youth did not have a permit for public demonstration.

Mike Martinez, of the Bolivarian Youth, says that these points are irrelevant to the charges, and that their right to publicly protest were violated. The Bolivarian Youth filed charges with their attorney by their side, Jack Lieberman of the Peace and Justice Network.

The City of Miami police department will now conduct investigations and decide if criminal charges will be placed on Vigilia Mambisa members.

It doesn't look good for Saavedra, and others. There is plenty of evidence against them.

[Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images]