"Have You No Conscience?"

That's Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart [FL-21] from last Monday. It seems that our favorite Congressman from Miami took the time on the House floor to remind everyone of Cuba's oppressed Cuban dissident movement, and comparing their repression to Jewish persecution, and shaming members of the American press for not doing enough to shed light on this genocide.

Rep. Diaz-Balart centered his speech on the health of political dissident Martha Beatriz Roque, who last week was described as gravely ill due to a hunger strike. But, Rep. Diaz-Balart on Monday declared that Roque was "close to death." Yesterday, Roque revealed herself to reporters in Havana who instead described her as "unsteady but far from death."

Huh? This is what happened...

Late last week, Miami Herald reporter Juan O. Tamayo reported about the deteriorating health of Martha Beatriz Roque during a hunger strike which began around Tuesday. (Local Spanish-language news stations America Teve and Telemundo51 also reported on the health of Roque.) The reports described Roque's condition jumping from extremely grave to stable based on examinations by an ambulance crew and one doctor. Tamayo's only source seemed to be political dissident Vladimiro Roca, who was also protesting alongside Roque. Then, on Sunday Roca reported [audio by Radio Marti] on Roque's latest diagnosis by one doctor. The diagnosis included a "sudden case of decompensation" (heart dysfunction by overload), "tachycardia" (abnormal rapid beating of the heart), paleness, sweating, and loss of consciousness.

By Monday morning, Marc Masferrer from the Uncommon Sense blog was convinced that "Cuban Dissident Martha Beatriz Roque is Dying." Masferrer wrote to his readers that this was "not a dramatic exaggeration" but "an accurate assessment of facts on the ground." By Monday evening on the House floor, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart was also convinced that this was the case. (Rep. Diaz-Balart also clearly exaggerated the number of dissidents on a hunger strike with Roque as "dozens" when all reports indicate less than ten) Therefore, he wondered why there was no media coverage about the dying Roque and asked:

"Members of the press, have you no conscience? Do not continue to treat the suffering, oppressed people of Cuba, and their heroes, as non-persons. Please do your duty."

I agree, the press must do its duty. Yesterday, after appearing before reporters Martha Beatriz Roque refused to answer specific questions about her health. Reporters must not allow the rumors of her health go unaccounted for. Did she, Vladimiro Roca, or any doctor exaggerate her condition for increased media coverage? Did their hunger strike end because of Rep. Diaz-Balart's inaccurate public statements?

Cuba's dissidents cannot allow their credibility to be tainted. Their actions must be transparent and without doubt about their goals advocating human rights. Neither should their actions be concerned with politicians who exploit their suffering for selfish gain.

Meanwhile in Politics (Part 2) [Updated]

BATTLE OF THE CUBAN TITANS

And then there's what the Miami Herald has described as the "Battle of the Titans: Martínez vs. Díaz-Balart."

As far back as August of last year, the rumors of former Hialeah Mayor Raúl Martínez running against Rep. Lincoln Díaz-Balart had been circling. But, finally, this morning in front of Hialeah City Hall, renamed in 2006 as the "Raúl L. Martínez Government Center," Raúl Martínez (Democrat) made it official. And, it will most certainly be one of the most contentious and most watched political races that Miami has ever seen.

Back in October, it was reported in The Hill (Ian Swanson) that Raúl Martínez's main opponents would concentrate on two issues: Martínez's opposition to the Cuban family travel restrictions, and his 1991 conviction of federal extortion charges (which he later appealed and was exonerated from after hung juries). Swanson quoted one of Rep. Diaz-Balart's long-time campaign managers, Carlos Curbelo, saying: "I don’t know what would hurt [Martínez] more in an election — the criminal conviction or opposition to key elements of the embargo... His being on the ballot would end up hurting Democrats statewide." Curbelo seemed to look forward to campaigning against Martínez saying: "How often do you get a chance to race against a guy convicted of a felony?"

But, Martínez has his supporters, such as former Florida Sen. Bob Graham and other current leaders in the Democratic Party. At Hialeah City Hall this morning, Martínez stood with three city council members (all Republicans), and expects more Republicans to join him soon, especially Hialeah's current mayor, Julio Robaina. In 2006, these same Republicans renamed Hialeah City Hall in honor of Raúl Martínez, and had many praises for him, as articulated in the official resolution [PDF]:

"... in honor of Raúl L. Martínez and in commemoration of his 28 years of distinguished and exemplary public service to the City of Hialeah in elected office, representing the city for 4 years as a City Council member and leading the city for 24 years as Mayor with inspiration and extraordinary vision, and whose dynamism and direction transformed the city of Hialeah during his tenure, leaving a legacy of a leader who guided the city to a firm and secure financial standing, who enhanced municipal services that surpass all other cities, who utilized financing and revenues to repair and rebuild miles of roadway and drainage facilities throughout the city and to rehabilitate the water and sewer distribution network for the benefit of present and future generations... all within the confines of annual balanced budgets, while reducing municipal taxes, and who gave his heart and soul to the city of Hialeah as his first priority, dedicating his prodigious energy and intellect to each and every citizen of the City of Hialeah, each day of every year, for the enhancement of the community and for the significant improvement of their lives."

And, Raúl Martínez doesn't shy away from his opponents who continuously bring up his prior conviction. He told Diario Las Americas earlier this month that (former lawyer) Rep. Diaz-Balart "apparently didn't take the course that says that if you go for an appeal and win, you are exonerated... The day he wants to discuss it... I'm in the best mood to do it, hand-to-hand, face-to-face, like men."

Several other political organizations are supporting Martínez because of his opposition to the Cuban family restrictions. Plans to unseat the Diaz-Balart brothers are part of a larger plan (including the formation of a PAC) for those who are advocating normalization of US/Cuba relations. Larry Luxner of CubaNews covered this angle earlier this month, and interviewed Cuban-Americans like Tony Zamora (Bay of Pigs veteran and President of the Cuban American Commission of Family Rights), Alvaro F. Fernandez and Joe García who want an alternative to the hard-line. These same men, along with Alfredo Duran (another Bay of Pigs Veteran), participated last year in a conference entitled "Imperatives for a New Cuba Policy, highlighting the discontent with US policy towards Cuba in the congressional districts of both Diaz-Balart brothers.

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart has told El Nuevo Herald that he has about $900,000 behind his campaign. There's no indication how much money Raúl Martínez has behind his. While it was rumored that Joe García would possibly run against Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, no official announcement has been made yet. Such a coordinated challenge was reported to possibly cost $1.5 million.

According to Joe García: "The ability to raise money isn’t something that troubles me greatly... It’s going to require a great deal of money to run for a congressional seat. I assume that people of conscience will want to make a difference."

[Update]

Actually, I forgot to mention that an online poll conducted by Telemundo51.com earlier this month asked viewers who they would vote for in this "Battle of the Titans." Rep. Lincoln Díaz-Balart won with a strong majority of 67% over Raúl Martínez with 33%. These results were from a total of 3369 online votes.

And, according to Rui Ferreira from El Nuevo Herald, maybe in two weeks we will see a challenger for Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart. (Which will most likely be Joe García.)

[Part 1]

Are You for Real?

Yesterday evening, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart appeared on Radio Mambi's "La Mesa Redonda" with Armando Perez Roura. There didn't seem to be a special reason for his appearance, the Diaz-Balart brothers appear occasionally on Radio Mambi to talk about a whole host of current events. Last night was no exception, highlighting the fact that Radio Mambi is nothing more than a soapbox exclusively for the hard-line political leadership in Miami.

Diaz-Balart, with a broad brush, went over current events (practically without interruption) and gave us his view of the world. Somehow, he always manages to include some exceptional levels of fear-mongering.

"Therefore, it is totally, in my opinion, incorrect to assert that Communism is dead. In addition, Communism is in coalition with other elements, other groups, other ideologies that want to enslave humanity. They are in a great coalition of evil. President Bush used the concept of 'axis of evil.' There's a great coalition of evil." [MP3]

As long as we allow our personal fears to override our commitments to reason, then we can only expect a conspiratorial world of perpetual conflict. Which, by the way, for the last 15 years seems to have worked well for Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart. Congratulations.

C-Span Debates US-Cuba Policy

Don't miss out on today's C-Span coverage of US-Cuba Policy. It includes a September 17th Heritage Foundation speech by US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez beginning at 5:37pm EST. In the Gutierrez speech, Cuba's policy towards the US is summed up as:

"Anything that can hurt the U.S. That has been their policy for over 48 years, and that has been more important than putting a focus on the plight of the people in Cuba."

C-Span's special coverage of US-Cuba policy begins at 7pm EST, and is scheduled until 10pm. The program is scheduled to include several interviews and video from Cuba.

---------------------

[Update: Nov. 20, 2007]

The three hour program on C-Span yesterday was incredibly informative. It is a program that would best serve those who would like to learn more about the debate on US policy towards Cuba, and its principle actors. It is also the kind of program that is sorely needed in Miami, but has been denied to its English and, especially, Spanish-speaking audience. The program included an excellent and lengthy interview with GaryMarx, Chicago Tribune reporter on Latin America and the Caribbean. Marx and his family lived in Cuba for about five years (2002-20o7) until his press credentials were not renewed earlier this year by the Cuban Government, and had to leave the island. According to Marx, the director of the Cuban International Press Center told him:

"This is nothing personal, this is business. Our overseas image is very important to us. We weighed your positive stories against your negative stories. There are too many negative stories. We think we can do better with someone else."

According to John Dinges, reporter on Latin America,:

"Reading Gary Marx's voluminous catalogue of stories from his five years living and writing in Cuba, one is struck--as Fidel once was--that this is a tremendously thorough journalist who not only understands a lot about Cuba but has a good deal of affection for the country."

Also in Dinges' article, AFP's Havana correspondent, Marie Sanz, said:

"Gary Marx is a very balanced reporter... He went everywhere on the island. He's not an arrogant American. He is unusual in that he is full of empathy for the Cuban common man."

The Marx interview was a very honest view about Cuba. As an American journalist in Cuba, Marx talked about how he felt living in a police state, and about the feeling of being constantly watched and mindful of his conversations, even at home. Marx revealed that he did not allow his children to be enrolled in public schooling in Havana because of the political indoctrination and its suppression of individual creativity on its students. On the flip-side, Marx, living in Havana for five years, fell in love with the country and its people, and considers Cuba his "second home." He hopes one day to return to the island.

The other highlight of the C-Span program was the debate between Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Rep. Jim McGovern. Both speakers clarified their positions well on US policy towards Cuba, and showed the public the depth of disagreement on current policy. Rep. McGovern was mostly opposed to the US embargo based on its travel restrictions and ineffectiveness over nearly 50 years, while Rep. Diaz-Balart supported the embargo based on the accusation that Cuba is a state-sponsor of terror, and a country that "kills Americans."

Rep. Diaz-Balart's argument is easily refuted by the research collected at the Center for International Policy (CIP). US State Department reports accusing Cuba of giving refuge to members from ETA, FARC or ELN are also easily dismissed. According to the latest article from CIP:

"...the Spanish government had no concerns about ETA members residing in Cuba. They are there as the result of earlier agreements. Spain has no evidence that any are involved in terrorist activities and regards the question of their presence in Cuba as a matter strictly between the Spanish and Cuban governments which is being handled satisfactorily."

The same applies to FARC and ELN:

"... conversations with the Colombian embassies in Washington and Havana last year indicated that they are there with the acquiescence of the Colombian government, which continues to see Cuba's efforts to broker a peace process in Colombia as 'helpful and constructive.'"

Also, Rep. Diaz-Balart misrepresented the shootdown of the Brothers to the Rescue planes in 1996 as a case of terrorism. There's important background on the incident to consider, but constantly ignored or denied in Miami. When the UN's Special Rapporteur on Cuba presented his report to the General Assembly on the shootdown, he posed two questions:

"The high command of the Cuban Army was aware that shooting down the aircraft would add a new obstacle to the already difficult relations between Cuba and the United States. One can thus legitimately ask who in the Cuban Government has an interest in causing incidents that create such obstacles, and why. At the same time, one can also legitimately ask why the United States authorities did not take effective measures to halt additional flights by these aircraft which could be expected to have tragic consequences. One possible reason is the existence of groups in Miami whose relevance depends on the continued existence of confrontational policy between the two countries. "

Babalu Blog's Henry Gomez has his own thoughts on the debate, with a lengthy rebuttal to Rep. Jim McGovern. Gomez's argument is based on the assumption that "the original goal of the embargo was to punish Cuba for those unlawful expropriations" more than 45 years ago(!), and which over the years has included "additional criteria" towards the Cuban government. Gomez doesn't mention the actual economic restrictions over the years and their consequences (material and psychological) placed on a nation (not just the government) only 90 miles away, who once depended heavily on its northern neighbor economically.

[Once yesterday's program is available online, it will be posted.]

Imperious Attitudes (Part 1)

Yesterday, there was interesting commentary from some hard-liners related to Bush's recent Cuba policy speech.

Alberto De la Cruz from the Babalu Blog wonders if there's really any difference between the moral support of sanctions policy against South African Apartheid in the 80's and US sanctions policy now. There are plenty of differences, but its astonishing that most hard-liners cannot grasp them. The most obvious moral difference is the fact that the US administration at the time was initially opposed to sanctions towards South Africa (here's a chronology). Then-Pres. Reagan was actually calling for "constructive engagement" since the beginning of his term in 1981. By 1985, after years of pressure from international organizations, South African riots and UN resolutions for sanctions, the US Congress finally decided that it was time to follow the lead. That's one moral difference.

The basic political difference is the fact that multilateral sanctions were imposed on South Africa, not a unilateral embargo like the one imposed on Cuba by the US. And, even so, the multilateral sanctions imposed did not immediately end the Apartheid system in South Africa, as the economy sought ways to divert the "economic pain." In 1997, a book titled "Political Gain and Civilian Pain: Humanitarian impacts of economic sanctions" highlighted how the sanctions on South Africa had many negative effects on the civilian population, adding to what they were already suffering. It was around this time that international sanctions policy in general was being doubted and questioned. Today, the literature on sanctions is quite vast in investigation and opinion. That's also another moral consideration to compare.

Comparing South African and Cuban sanction policy, both originate from an understandable moral outrage. But, similarly we should consider what is the best policy option if we want to encourage change: unilateral, multilateral, sanctions or inducements. Furthermore, there are psycho-political considerations, especially between former colonial powers and their former subjects, in these cases there are plenty of examples.

But, some commentators don't understand this paradigm of super-power vs former subject. Carlos Alberto Montaner yesterday refused to acknowledge this fact as he praised Bush's Cuba speech. Montaner believes that the US is on the "ethical side of the conflict" with the Cuban government as the appropriate target of US pressure. But, its a very different picture around the world, as well as moral.

Also yesterday, US Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart appeared on the local show "This Week in South Florida" (WPLG) with Michael Putney. As one of the "select group" that met with Bush in preparation for his Cuba speech, Rep. Diaz-Balart made many revelations regarding the assumptions held by hard-liners. Putney asked some standard questions such as why should we support such an old and ineffective policy. Rep. Diaz-Balart actually told Putney that Fidel Castro is still an "omnipotent ruler" even if he succumbs to a coma! Diaz-Balart also revealed the imperious attitude behind Bush's speech: he said that US policy towards Cuba is "the only solution" to change on the island and that the rest of the international community "is making a mistake" by not supporting Bush.

As the old saying goes: "Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak." (John Adams)

[Part 1]

Bush's Gettysburg (Part 4)

Plenty of additional commentary and information about Bush's new speech on Cuba policy arrived this weekend.

On Friday, Miami Herald's Alfonso Chardy reported on the preparation for Bush's speech and how Cuban exile hard-liners in Miami helped. According to Chardy, there was a "select group of 10 who met with Bush in Miami on Oct. 12." George W. Bush was in Miami on October 12, scheduled to give a speech at the downtown Radisson about "expanding trade and investment" with Latin America. While the majority of the speech dealt with recent trade deals concerning Peru, Colombia and Panama, Bush also had time to elaborate about strengthening "the forces of freedom and democracy throughout the Americas", which included a few words on Cuba: "And the vision I have for our hemisphere includes a free and democratic Cuba." This comment was followed with an audience member yelling out: "Viva Bush!"

Alfonso Chardy provided additional information to what Ninoska Pérez Castellón was already telling Radio Mambi listeners two days before. After Bush's speech on Wednesday, Pérez Castellón was mentioning on her 3pm show how she helped arrange some of the meetings on Oct. 12th with Bush and the families of the political prisoners mentioned. Including Pérez Castellón and Radio Mambi's programming director Armando Perez Roura, Chardy includes "Remedios Díaz Oliver of the U.S. Cuba Democracy PAC and the Liberty Council; former state Rep. Gastón Cantens, and Florida's Republican Cuban-American lawmakers, Sen. Mel Martínez and Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln and Mario Díaz-Balart" as part of the "select group of 10."

It's pretty clear to see whose voices were represented in Bush's speech. Chardy also presents some interesting quotes, such as Armando Pérez Roura saying: "I said to [Bush] that for me he was the last hope of Cubans in exile and that we were concerned by the rapprochement [the Cuban regime] was pursuing, without instituting any change." I found this quote as either an honest sign of desperation by one of Miami's most hard-line voices, or another desperate attempt to coax Bush into supporting a hard-line position.

Also, according to Chardy, "[o]fficials familiar with the discussions, who declined to be identified because they did not want to talk publicly about internal deliberations, said the speech was in the works for months." This makes some sense. I found out that the cheesy line in Bush's Wednesday speech that goes "the light of liberty will shine on Cuba" goes back to April 28 when Bush said the same thing delivering a commencement address at the Miami Dade College. And, the inclusion of families of Cuban political prisoners, such as Yamile Llanes Labrada (wife of Jose Luis Garcia Paneque), was probably already being planned since early October given Labrada's appearance on Oct. 10th at the Rose Garden for the Hispanic Heritage Month celebration at the White House.

But, other things in the speech like the mention of Armando Valladares, a 22-year Cuban political prisoner, and the "tropical gulag" descriptor go back years! Valladares released a popular book in 1986 originally titled "Against All Hope: The Prison Memoirs of Armando Valladares", which recounts his torture in Cuba's prisons. The book helped coin the phrase "Castro's gulag" since "gulag" seemed the most apt for the time. Then-Pres. Reagan made sure to include Valladares in his speech on Dec. 1986 to designate Human Rights Day. The following year, Pres. Reagan nominated Valladares as a US representative to the UN. The Cuban government became fiercely opposed to the appointment. Today, Valladares' book is subtitled "A Memoir of Life in Castro's Gulag." Since then, Valladares has been repeatedly mentioned in other Reagan speeches, including remarks celebrating Cuban Independence Day (May 20th, 1902), a gesture also copied by former Pres. George H.W. Bush. ("Tropical Gulag" may have been coined by Global Options in 1987 with the publication of "Tropical Gulag: The Construction of Cold War Images of Cuba in the United States.")

But, in general, Bush's speech is unchanged since 2001 when celebrating Cuban Independence Day in the White House said: "History tells us that forcing change upon repressive regimes requires patience." Patience indeed! And, so we wait, just like Presidents before.

Carl Hiassen yesterday in the Herald characterized it well: "Bush's speech was recycled from his father, who recycled it from Ronald Reagan, who recycled it from Richard Nixon, who recycled it from Lyndon Johnson, who recycled it from John F. Kennedy." He's right.

(Babalu Blog's Henry Gomez has a rebuttal to Hiassen's column.)

[Part 1]

Bush's Gettysburg (Part 3)

After his inaccurate historical introduction, President Bush coins the basic theme of his Cuba policy speech: "Nuestro Dia Ya Viene Llegando" (Our Day is Coming Soon). Or, as I translate it: Let's wait and do nothing.

The background on the coined phrase comes from a 1991 Willy Chirino song, coincidentally titled "Nuestro Dia (Ya Viene Llegando)" [Spanish lyrics], which became quite popular in Cuba. Alex from the Stuck on the Palmetto blog describes well the personal and significant meaning of this song, and at the time when Cuba was undergoing difficult changes. It was also a time when many Cuba experts were expecting big changes in Cuba, and hard-liners were seizing the opportunity to further squeeze the island with sanctions.

Following this, Pres. Bush introduces us to his administration: Sec. Condoleeza Rice (who is the Chair of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba), Amb. John Negroponte (Director of National "Intelligence", who almost a year ago said that Fidel Castro only had "months" to live), and Sec. Carlos Gutierrez (who last month inaugurated a series at the Heritage Foundation supporting the US embargo, and which currently supports Congressional "hearings on ways that current [Cuban] threats to U.S. national security can be eliminated and market-based democracy can be promoted in post-Castro Cuba").

Next, Pres. Bush introduces his favorite members of Congress: Sen. Martinez, Reps. Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Thaddeus McCotter, and Tim Mahony (all US Reps. who this July voted against the recent Rangel Amendment that simply sought to overturn a 2005 banking restriction on US farmers legally trading with Cuba).

(Pres. Bush also mispronounced Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's name too. He said "Leythien" as he read the name off his hard copy. Almost twenty years in Congress, and we get "Leythien"? Even I'm offended.)

[Part 4]

13 Votes Short and the Road Ahead

Today, the House voted to override President Bush's veto on expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but they came 13 votes short. Earlier this month, Democrats in the House waged an ad campaign against SCHIP expansion opponents, which may also signal the beginning of election battles going into '08.

On Tuesday, the Miami Herald's Lesley Clark reported that Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart began "a preemptive strike" on Radio Mambi to counter ads that criticized their opposition to expansion of SCHIP. The three voted against expansion of SCHIP when it passed the House last month with 265 versus 159 votes, and a prior passage in the Senate with 67 versus 29 votes supporting expansion. They voted the same today on reasons that many Republicans share: that the expansion of $35 billion for SCHIP went far beyond the intended $5 billion and would encourage more Americans to seek federal coverage instead of private insurance. Today's vote is the culmination of a media campaign that began on the 8th targeting Republicans who initially voted in opposition.

Early this week on Monday, Ileana, Mario and Lincoln heard about the proposed ads against them and immediately called in to Radio Mambi. Together they called in to Ninoska Perez-Castellon's afternoon show, and later to Armando Perez-Roura's show in the evening. The damage control continued on Tuesday and Wednesday with the three Republicans trying to get as much airtime as possible to defend their position on SCHIP. But, aside from the usual defense that the SCHIP program is too costly and would lead people away from private insurance, Ileana, Mario and Lincoln had a different argument for Radio Mambi listeners on Tuesday: SCHIP would destroy small Cuban-owned cigar-makers here in Florida.

It was Tuesday evening on Radio Mambi that Ileana, Mario and Lincoln called in to make their usual case, but they were supported by other guests that night to defend tobacco. Ana Navarro, Republican lobbyist, was on the show with two Cuban small-business owners who were arguing that the tax increase on tobacco, attached to the $35 billion expansion of SCHIP, would seriously damage the cigar business in South Florida. The show went on to speak of the rich Cuban history with cigar-makers, a mention of the decreased risk of cancer from cigars in comparison to cigarettes, and the possible negative impact on cigar employee wages if the tax increase on tobacco would pass. This is possibly the "small minority-owned businesses" that Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart had in mind in his letter to the Miami Herald from the 15th.

But, the show neglected several facts about cigars and the tax on tobacco. According to the American Cancer Society, "[i]f you smoke cigars, your risk of death from laryngeal, oral,or esophageal cancers is 4 to 10 times the risk compared to non-smokers... In a recent study, researchers found that the concentrations of carbon monoxide at two cigar social events in San Francisco were higher than the levels found on a busy California freeway." The guests on Radio Mambi made no mention of these negative health effects from cigars.

Also, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently issued a rebuttal to the White House's defense against the possible tax increase on tobacco. In essence, "[t]he SCHIP bill would advance efforts both to improve children’s health and to reduce the harm and costs of smoking, and the biggest gains in both areas would come among low-income families." The argument here goes that the tax increase (from 39 cents to $1) and high price of cigarettes would lead to fewer smokers within low-income families (who make up the minority of smokers anyway), increase family funds, and thus improve general health of low-income families. The majority of smokers (about 60%), who make at least twice as much as those living on the poverty line, will carry the costs of the tax increase. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 72% of Americans favored the tax on tobacco and $35 billion expansion of SCHIP.

Nancy Watzman from the the Huffington Post pointed to the influence of "tobacco money" on Capitol Hill. Since 2000, the tobacco industry spent nearly $25 million on federal campaign contributions, and "[n]early 80 percent of that cash went to Republicans."

Blogger Larry Thorson described a small demonstration that took place on Tuesday outside Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's office. He's keeping his eye on both Ileana and Lincoln Diaz-Balart with respective blogs.

So what are the ramifications of this defeat? Ron Pollack from Families USA believes that 718,603 uninsured children in Florida are at risk. And Floridians may have lost $2.45 billion in federal funding that, aside from providing healthcare for children, would have provided $1.08 billion in increased business activity, $417.1 million in increased wages and 12,953 additional jobs for state residents. A recent University of Florida study also noted that possible increases to premiums in Florida's SCHIP would have "a lasting effect on poorer families, who remained more likely to drop out of the program even after the premium was restored to its original level." E. Richard Brown, the director of the University of California-Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research, says that "[i]f we increase the cost and kids are dropped, we’re really missing the important goal of why we developed SCHIP in the first place, which is to ensure children have health coverage and access to care."

Surely, this debate will carry into '08, and according to Ian Swanson from The Hill, Democrats in Miami may already be preparing for an election battle. The ads that began this week against Ileana, Mario and Lincoln were "the first time the national Democratic Party has targeted advertising toward those districts." In my opinion, the way that the three Republicans immediately scrambled towards their base, pandering to Cuban exiles, revealed a sign of concern.

[Photo above from SEIU petition march in Washington D.C. on Oct. 1]

Showdown in Miami

Joe Garcia appeared this morning on the Jim Defede Radio Show and said that Raul Martinez, former Hialeah mayor, might possibly run against Lincoln Diaz-Balart's seat in District 21. Defede asked his audience what they thought, and they responded positively.

If this happens it could be quite a big political showdown. Raul Martinez has very different views about Cuba in comparison to Diaz-Balart's tired rhetoric.

This news from Garcia lends more support to the rumor that was first posted on the Naked Politics blog one week ago, which Beth Reinhard from the Miami Herald predicts "would be a monster of a race."

But, the Cuba Journal blog believes that if Martinez wins (which he argues might happen under one scenario) "nothing much will change, same anti-Cuba votes, different face."

Looking forward to more news when Barack Obama makes his August 25th visit to Miami.

A Year Later...

I can still remember my surprise as I, and the rest of Miami, was caught unaware by the news of Fidel Castro's transfer of power to Raul one year ago. How could anyone have imagined it, especially when that very day President Bush was having breakfast at Versailles Restaurant in Little Havana?

Looking back, this transfer of power was just procedural because President Bush himself transferred his powers to Vice-President Cheney this month when he went under general anesthesia for a colonoscopy. Its a right given to the President under the 25th Amendment.

Fidel Castro seems to be getting better now, but you couldn't have convince anyone of this a year ago.

Looking back at the local news coverage a year ago, many were convinced of something very dire. Sure, Fidel is old, but most of the news afterward painted a very grim picture. Remember the Negroponte quote from last December: "Everything we see indicates it will not be much longer... months, not years."

On July 31, one local news station had US Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart describing what some in Miami were thinking: "It's evident that Castro is either dead or dying."

Many were convinced that Fidel Castro was in fact dead. A Telemundo51 poll from August 2nd showed that 43% of viewers though Castro was dead, while 33% thought he was really ill.

On August 1, Maria Elvira Salazar hosted a special television program about the recent events. She surveyed her audience with an online poll and the results showed that 91% thought Fidel was dead. That's was based on viewers of MegaTV channel 22.

Many had made it clear: how could an ego-driven dictator relinquish power unless he is already dead? Any other alternative logic was suspended.

In my opinion, the phenomena that occurred in Miami that evening on July 31, 2006, only revealed the negative bias that still permeates this city on the Cuban issue. A simple transfer of power was immediately met with signs of death. Why would our thoughts expect anything else?

That's why I have great distrust in a lot of information that comes from Miami, especially when it is about Cuba. In Miami it is difficult to find a view that doesn't attribute the worst from a government that has no other face than that of a "perverse circus" as Lincoln Diaz-Balart once described it.

But, a year later, what have we learned?

- Phil Peters at the Cuban Triangle Blog has more thoughts.
- More Pics here at ViewImages.Com

[Photo by Roberto Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images]

Searching for Evidence

The same day that the Miami Herald published their report on cooperation by the FBI and the Cuban government on the case of Luis Posada Carriles, our three favorite US Representatives, Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, "condemned" the actions of the US Department of Justice.

Today the Herald publishes the statements of the three US Representatives saying:

"By asking a state sponsor of terrorism for 'evidence' regarding terrorism, the Bush administration Justice Department demonstrates a shockingly profound ignorance of the nature of terrorism, of its origins and its state sponsors... The only 'evidence' that the terrorist regime in Havana could provide the United States with regard to the twice-acquitted-in-Venezuela-Mr. Posada or anyone else would be fabricated evidence."

Ironically, the statements above are fabricated as well.

Luis Posada Carriles has NOT been acquitted twice. The Miami Herald points out that Posada Carriles was once acquitted by a military tribunal in Venezuela, but this was for charges of treason and not an investigation on the 1976 bombing. Nevertheless, that military acquittal was annulled when a "higher military court found that the lower one lacked jurisdiction."

The myth of the "twice-acquitted-in-Venezuela-Mr. Posada" has been repeated by many news outlets, even the BBC, but its all false. One need only read the reports.

As for the description of Cuba as a "state sponsor of terrorism," according to the Center for International Policy, the US State Department "actually offers no evidence that Cuba is involved in terrorist activities." Also, the US list of state-sponsors of terrorism "has no set of criteria for inclusion or removal from the list," thus its purely political and arbitrary.

It seems that Lincoln, Mario and Ileana are also guilty of "fabricated evidence."

What's a Polisario? (Part 4)

Just this week both Morocco and the Polisario Front presented their new peace plans to the United Nations. These are plans that have been revised and debated since the 1991 ceasefire. The US has given "praise" to the Moroccan plan. The Polisario Front believes the Moroccan plan is "inadequate." It was known since the start of April that both presentations would clash at the UN.

And coincidentally, last week Oscar Corral thought it was a "good time to revisit the story of some of the victims" of the Polisario Front, in conjunction with the release of a new report by the ICCAS at the University of Miami. Unfortunately for us, both Corral and ICCAS unknowingly seem to be doing the PR work for the Moroccan government. A lucky strike for Morocco and their peace plan at the UN.

Oscar Corral's 2005 article makes a brave attempt to accurately describe the history of the Polisario/Moroccan conflict, but his real story is the plight of the former Polisario refugees and their "firsthand accusations of human-rights abuses and corruption" as victims in the camps controlled by the Polisario Front. But, this is only one side of the story. Corral acknowledges this by writing that the visit by the former refugees was "sponsored by the Moroccan government" through a group called the Moroccan American Center for Policy. And, to top it all off, our favorite Cuban-American US Representatives, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart were present at the news conference of the former Polisario refugee victims.

Corral quotes Lincoln Diaz-Balart saying: "The fact that there is an armed group such as the Polisario Front seeking power as an independent nation state in the Western Sahara, supported by terrorist regimes such as the Cuban regime is a concern."

Well, the new ICCAS report just adds more hot air. Actually, ICCAS brings no new evidence at all, just new allegations made by the Moroccan government against the Polisario Front. Since a 2001 report by ICCAS titled "Castro and Terrorism: A Chronology," the Polisario Front has already been labeled a terrorist organization along with Cuba. Now, ICCAS is basically repeating allegations by the Moroccan government saying that the Polisario Front conducts "coordination and cooperation" with an Al-Qaeda related group in North Africa. The ICCAS report sources the allegation from an AFP article from March 2007. The very same day those allegation were reported by the AFP, the Polisario Front issued a press statement calling them "grotesque lies."

[Part 5]

A Ten Foot Poll

Well, the poll finally came out, and the hard-liners are scrambling like it was a Godzilla. Yesterday, the Florida International University (FIU) publicly released its occasional Cuba Poll, and some of its findings indicate a growing and unbearable trend: Cuban-Americans are beginning to oppose US policy towards Cuba!

FIU has been polling Cuban-Americans in the Miami area since 1991. And, every once in while they release the most comprehensive polling data about the Cuban exile community, and the results have always been revealing and enlightening. The Cuba Poll, since 1997, has been headed by the Institute for Public Opinion Research at FIU, led by Dr. Guillermo J. Grenier, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, and Dr. Hugh Gladwin, Director of the Institute for Public Opinion Research. As the principle investigators, they have led the way to find out the current attitudes about Cubans in Miami. But, there are some people that wouldn't touch the findings with a ten-foot pole.

Ana Carbonell, from the office of US Representative (District 21) Lincoln Diaz-Balart, has described this poll as a "propaganda tool used by those who want to ease sanctions and normalize relations with the regime." It seems that Ana Carbonell is not aware that many polls show that Americans oppose current policy towards Cuba. But, since Lincoln Diaz-Balart favors current US policy, and the 2004 travel restrictions as "part of an important means" against Cuba, he will most likely avoid this poll as much as possible. Also, upon the release of the new poll, Ninoska Perez-Castellon from Radio Mambi was prepared to discredit the findings on her radio program at 3pm.

But, no one has yet to directly challenge the findings, and most likely no one will. Yet yesterday, Ninoska Perez-Castellon made an embarrassing challenge against the findings. Her argument was not based on the content of the Cuba Poll, but rather on the credibility of Carlos Saladrigas, co-chairman of the the Cuba Study Group (CSG), which funded the poll. Ninoska went off on a tangent about what Saladrigas said in the late 90's and how its doesn't jive with his current posture. I have no idea how this has anything to do with the new Cuba Poll. The funding of the CSG has not altered in any way the basic framework of the Cuba Poll. Since 1997, way before the formation of the Cuba Study Group, the Cuba Poll has asked the same basic questions, with small variations in order to address current political issues. This is also the first time the Cuba Poll is funded by the CSG, yet the principle questions are the same ones from 1997, 2000, and 2004.

Agustin Tamargo (Part 1)

When I first started to listen to Radio Mambi, there was an unmistakable voice that dominated those airwaves in the morning. It sounded like the voice of a man being choked while trying to talk, but it was the determined voice of Agustin Tamargo, who was recovering from surgery on his throat. I knew then that Radio Mambi, through Tamargo, had something important to say, even though I couldn't understand half the time what it was.

Tuning in this morning, I was shocked along with everyone else to hear the recent death of Agustin Tamargo, a determined man if anything else. Listening to the radio, the heartfelt condolences being transmitted was like a partial list of Who's-Who of the Cuban-American leadership in Miami: Radio Mambi's general manager and CPB board member, Claudia Puig, owner and president of "La Poderosa" WWFE 670 AM, Jorge Rodriguez, Miami-Dade Mayor, Carlos Alvarez, House Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart, with many more calling in throughout the day I'm sure. Also, some of our local hard-line groups called in as well: members from Unidad Cubana, Vigilia Mambisa, and (of course) the F4 Commandos.

13 Versus Insulza (part 1)

In their tireless efforts for a free Cuba, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart have once again selectively applied the laws they supposedly claim to uphold in their entirety, and have put their names on this ridiculous letter.

Before the letter went out, Ileana was reported as saying that "[o]pening talks now with the brutal Castro regime, before there is any democratization, would be a colossal miscalculation on the part of the OAS that would only extend the grip that the Castro brothers hold over the Cuban nation." This is a false argument that these three Cuban-American politicians have used for lord knows how long. Nevertheless, Ileana, Lincoln and Mario should reread the OAS Charter and consider negotiations if they truly are committed to upholding those principles.

Of the 13 signatories, 8 are from Florida, and three from New Jersey. Nuff said. The three from New Jersey have supported failed policies towards Cuba in the past.

Insulza Watch (part 2)

So, yesterday in Diario las Americas, Lincoln goes on to say that on the 16th of this month a letter, signed by 13 House Representatives, was sent to Jose Miguel Insulza concerning his recent comments about "dialogue" with Cuba. The letter basically makes two arguments: 1) Insulza confuses Cuba (the people) with Cuba (the dictatorship), thus his statements to "dialogue" with Cuba (the dictatorship) only "serve to strengthen the intentions of the totalitarian regime to fulfill its absolute succession to oppress the Cuban people"; 2) Insulza's comments contradicts the OAS Charter, specifically article 3, section D.

Let's analyze these arguments. First, in Cuba, the worst political act of repression in recent years was the 2003 crackdown on dissidents, which arrested some 75 Cubans. This did not occur after the US decided, or uttered, to have a dialogue with Cuba. The reasons behind this crackdown are very clear and have nothing to do with dialogue with the Cuban government. Also, Cuba has continuous dialogue with other nations, and since 2003 no human rights organization has described a significant increase in repression. To believe that a dialogue with Cuba will cause more oppression is without basis.

Second, the accusation that Insulza's comments "contradict" the principles of the OAS Charter is also absurd. Article 3, section D of the OAS Charter basically says that the "solidarity" between OAS members is based on "effective exercise of representative democracy." Well, Cuba is not a member and Insulza isn't really asking for "solidarity" with Cuba, he's trying to help them (the people). In Jamaica (Feb. 7, 2007), Insulza said that "[w]e cannot help the people of Cuba if we cannot talk to them." In fact, he is obeying the purpose of the OAS Charter to "strengthen the peace and security of the continent" (article 2, section A).

Also, Insulza never suggested that Cuba become a member of the OAS. But, even if we were to apply the principles of article 3 of the OAS Charter to Cuba, Insulza still does not "contradict" himself. According to article 3, section I, "[c]ontroversies of an international character arising between two or more American States shall be settled by peaceful procedures." A dialogue falls within this principle. And, Insulza (and the rest of Latin America) has made it very clear that he opposes US policy towards Cuba. On the other hand, if we obey the principles of the OAS, it seems that US policy towards Cuba violates the OAS Charter!

Insulza Watch (part 1)

More news is brewing about Insulza's bad-word. For those who don't know him, Jose Miguel Insulza is the current Secretary General for the Organization of American States (OAS). Last week he got some attention in Miami because of his comments to have a "dialogue" with Cuba. I wrote about how Radio Mambi got all flustered over his comments, even going so far as to call him a communist.

Well, yesterday two newspapers in Miami gave a response to Insulza (in a suspicious example of coincidence). In the local newspaper Diario Las Americas, a paper that frequently serves hard-line rhetoric on Cuba, they published a letter presented by the one and only Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Republican Congressman from the 21st district. Obviously, Lincoln believes that the idea of a "dialogue" with Cuba is contrary to the OAS charter (he cites article 3, section D), and that Insulza is off his rocker. Anyway, his letter is co-signed by 12 other House Representatives from New Jersey and Florida (what a surprise), except for two from Indiana (guess who) and South Carolina (you'll never guess). No real surprises from the list of names that support this letter, which I will soon address.

The other local paper that coincidentally responded to Insulza, the same day Lincoln gets his letter published in Diario Las Americas, is (drum-roll) the Miami Herald! The Miami Herald has had such a rocky relationship with its Cuba-American readers in Miami that it is an entire post all by itself. Anyway, the Herald (trying to win back readers) also comes out and says that Insulza must be nuts to suggest a dialogue with Cuba. They even make the same argument that many on BabaluBlog make. The irony.

There's no doubt that the Miami Herald waited for the letter by the House Representatives to make their own comments. Insulza made his comments more than a week ago! The Herald could have come out all by itself if it wanted to. But, of course, they don't want to step over anyone's feet here. Without question, this is another case where the local media follow the footsteps of the Cuban-American political leadership when it comes to the case of Cuba.